Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Clause 38 - Sustainable development

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 384, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) under Part 3 in relation to Simplified Planning Zones'.—[Matthew Green.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following amendments:
 No. 325, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 33, at end insert—
'( ) under Part 4 in relation to development control.'.
 No. 326, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 33, at end insert—
'( ) under Part 7 in relation to compulsory purchase.'.
 No. 370, in 
clause 38, page 20, line 34, leave out from 'function' to end of line 35 and insert—
'(a) with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development; and
(b) in Wales, so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the scheme made under section 121 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.'.
 I was going to call the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but he is not in his place.

Sydney Chapman: It would be helpful if you could remind us what point we have reached in considering the Bill, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. We are on amendment No. 384, which was moved by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) this morning. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) had just risen to his feet and was speaking to the amendment as my co-Chairman brought the proceedings to a close.

Sydney Chapman: I would not want to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, but my amendment No. 370 is in this group. I am surprised that it was not in the previous group of amendments, because it relates to the same part of the Bill. The Minister dealt with amendments No. 359 and 327 in the previous group.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise for being late, Mr. Pike. Before the break we were considering clause 38, which relates to sustainable development, and amendments Nos. 384 and 325. Would you please clarify exactly which group of amendments we are considering now, Mr. Pike?

Peter Pike: Amendment No. 384 was moved by the hon. Member for Ludlow this morning, and with it we are considering amendments Nos. 325, 326 and 370. I was not here, but I am told that the hon. Member for Cotswold had just risen to his feet as the proceedings were brought to a close.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that explanation, Mr. Pike. I was here, but I had forgotten. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ludlow moved that amendment, which is supported by amendments Nos. 325, 326 and 370.
 In a spirit of consistency, as the Minister acceded to half a loaf with a previous amendment, we should be considering whether all sections of the Bill should comply with the principles of sustainability. In clause 38(1) they apply under part 1 in relation to regional spatial strategy, under part 2 in relation to the local development scheme, and under part 6 in relation to Wales. However, for reasons that I hope the Minister will tell us about, parts 4 and 7, to which amendments Nos. 325 and 326 relate, are not covered by the principles of sustainability. Can the Minister tell us why major infrastructure projects, for example, which are dealt with in clause 40, and special planning zones are not covered by the principles of sustainability? Why is the exercise by a local authority of its compulsory purchase powers not covered by those principles? We must probe the Minister about that. 
 Amendment No. 370, which I presume that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) moved—

Peter Pike: Order. I must advise the Committee that the amendment that has been moved is amendment No. 384. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred to it, but he cannot move it now because it is not the lead amendment.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for your help, Mr. Pike. I was merely saying that I was surprised that amendment No. 370 was grouped with the amendments now under discussion and not with the previous group, as it seems to have more in common with amendments Nos. 359 and 327. I had no intention of moving it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Over the lunch hour, when I was doing homework on the amendments, I too was struck by the way in which the amendments were grouped. Amendment No. 370 is a good amendment and it is worth referring to it. My hon. Friend drafted it to strengthen the obligation for the relevant authorities, including those in Wales, to work towards achieving sustainable development. I ask the Minister to consider carefully whether it would improve the Bill. However, as we discussed the matter at length this morning, I hope that we can move on to the next clause.

Tony McNulty: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike, and hope that our deliberations this afternoon will be as speedy and efficient as they were this morning. My speaking notes say that amendment No. 384 is in error because simplified planning zones are in part 4, not part 3 so we cannot discuss it, so we shall move on.
 I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that simplified planning zones are covered because of the way in which clause 44 works. The need for an SPZ in an area has to be identified in the regional spatial strategy, which is covered by duties under clause 38. Therefore, in identifying the need for an SPZ, consideration will be given to sustainable development. Where the need for an SPZ has been identified, its location is likely to be contained in a local development document—to which, again, the duty in clause 38 applies. There is not a vacuum within which any definition or subsequent identification of SPZs takes place; they are sandwiched between RSSs and LDDs, both of which are clearly covered by clause 38.

Matthew Green: As the Minister is not objecting to the principle of the SPZs being covered in the same way as the others that are outlined in the clause, would he not, in the interests of clarity, find the amendment of assistance?

Tony McNulty: Because I am a politician, I am always loth to view assistance from the Opposition with anything but suspicion. Clarity is unnecessary in this regard, because one needs to see the entire Bill in all its interlocking glory. Because of the way in which clause 44 works, all that springs from it in terms of decision-making powers in connection with either the RSS or the LDD is covered in clause 38.
 One might as well say that, for the sake of clarity, everything in the Bill should be covered. That is entirely wrong, not least because part 4 is not meant to be an expansive review and revision of every aspect of the development control function of LPAs or RPBs. If we were to be indulgent towards the other amendments, those things would be covered by the sustainable elements of clause 38 but the remainder of the development control functions, not covered by the Bill, would not be. 
 Equally, when we come to the next amendment—I cannot remember its number—the same will be true of compulsory purchase. The Bill was never intended as, and does not profess to be, a root and branch revision of every aspect of the compulsory purchase system. One element alone of the compulsory purchase functions of a LPA would be covered by this, if it were all embracing, rather than every element.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I fail to follow what the Minister is saying. We had a long debate this morning on sustainability, and the Minister made a long speech in reply to that debate in which he told us that sustainability was a very good thing. Therefore, it appears to be inconsistent that major infrastructure projects, for example, are not covered by the principles of sustainability. I want the Minister to tell us why some parts of the Bill are covered those principles—which he considers to be such a good thing—and other parts of it are not. That appears to be totally inconsistent, and it flies in the face of what the Minister said about the amendment that he looked favourably on earlier—he said that the Bill should be consistent in all its parts.

Tony McNulty: Had I said what the hon. Gentleman has just characterised me as saying, he might have half a point. I did not say that the development control functions in part 4 were not covered by the sustainable development elements of clause 38; they are covered by them.
 What I am saying is that there is a great big world out there called the development control world, and that it goes far beyond the elements that we have revised in part 4. In so far as those elements impact on decisions to do with the development plan under clause 37, they will be covered by clause 38. However, it cannot be right that other development control functions should be captured in a willy-nilly, airy-fairy fashion when they are not defined or delineated, and when many of them will to some extent form part of the emerging LDDs and RSSs. 
 SPZs will be covered because of the way in which clause 44 works. SPZs do not drop from the sky; they are part and parcel of the LDD and, first, the RSS, both of which are bruited in the sustainable development responsibilities under clause 38—that is a central part of the clause. It is inappropriate to add a little part and suddenly say, ''That is covered by sustainable development.'' Everything is covered by sustainable development and by clause 38, to the extent that it impacts on clause 37. 
 We must look at clauses 37 and 38 in context. Subsequent to that, as all decisions made by planning authorities are governed by the RSSs—or at least they have to be in general conformity with them—or the LDDs, both of which are rooted in that duty with regard to sustainable development, everything is by and large covered.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is doing a moderate job of defending the indefensible. The major infrastructure projects are outwith the RSS and the LDD. Can he say where in the Bill it is stated that major infrastructure projects are covered by the principles of sustainable development?

Tony McNulty: With the best will in the world, I must say that the hon. Gentleman needs to listen more. I said that to the extent that all those development control decisions—including MIPs—have to be taken in relation to the development plan in clause 37, they are rooted in and covered by clause 38. It is as simple as that.
 Clauses 37 and 38 must be seen together. Clause 37 defines the hierarchy of the plans, and clause 38 defines the duty in terms of sustainable development. In as much as the MIPs and all the other elements under the development control part of the Bill relate to development control decisions, they are covered by clauses 37 and 38. That is also the case with regard to RSSs and LDDs—and all the other acronyms that one could muster, if one chose to do so. 
 Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment, particularly because of the SPZs.

David Wilshire: I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Pike, but the Minister's comments have given me an opportunity
 to raise a point that I did not and could not raise this morning. Your co-Chairman said that there would not be a clause stand part debate, so I will go back a step and remind you, and the Committee, that I said that there needed to be some discussion about what the Government had in mind.
 The Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold was being a bit ungracious—I cannot remember the exact word that he used—in not acknowledging the fact that he had received some documents from the Minister. At the time I believed that that was case for all of us, and I said that I did not want to be ungracious. After this morning's sitting I went to the message board and found the document that is in my hand, which is relevant to what the Minister said—the document to which the Minister referred this morning. I am sure that he will tell me that it was over on the Table this morning, but when I sat down in my place this morning I had no reason to know that it might be there. The document could not have been made available earlier because it is dated 21 January. It is helpful—I read it during lunchtime.

Tony McNulty: Let me make it clear that I was in my office until 10 o'clock last night making sure that the document had been produced and sufficient copies made. The copies were brought physically to the House by my staff this morning and were put on the Table in the Room. It is entirely the hon. Gentleman's fault if he does not look at the Table to find out what documents are available. I shall not have him rebuke my civil servants.

Peter Pike: Order. We are having not a stand part debate but a debate on amendment No. 384. I ask hon. Members to ensure that their comments relate to the amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. We have a problem of procedure. The Government's timetable is very tight. I appreciate that the Minister did his best to help the Committee by producing the document, which is extremely helpful as my hon. Friend said, but may I ask him with, the greatest deference, whether it would be possible to produce documents at least a day before our sittings? One cannot, especially if one is speaking, read a document on the day of the sitting in order to inform oneself of what one should say. It is important to receive documents in good time.

Peter Pike: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that the Minister heard what the hon. Gentleman said and that he endeavours to produce documents as speedily as possible for the benefit of the Committee and its Chairman.
 I remind Mr. Wilshire that we cannot go back to this morning's debate and nor can we have a clause stand part debate because my co-Chairman has given a clear ruling on that. I shall allow Mr. Wilshire to speak provided that he speaks to the amendments that we are debating. I am sure that he is a sufficiently skilful Member to do that without incurring my wrath.

David Wilshire: That would be the last thing in the world that I would want, Mr. Pike. I gather that your wrath can be quite horrendous so I shall do my best to avoid it while merely expressing sorrow that the Minister chose to sour the point that I made. I was not being critical. The document is enormously helpful, but even if I had had it at the beginning of the morning, I could not have joined debate and read it at the same time.
 The document helps our consideration. Item 21 says that the Government are committed to a planning system that is: ''Transparent''—one of the principles that the Minister wants— 
''so that information about plans and policies is easily available in a form which is easily understood and can enable interested parties to respond''.
 Everything that I said in my preamble is relevant to what the Minister is doing because any explanation for the public that reads ''ABC this'', ''DEF that'' and ''XYZ the other'' will be opaque. I hope that the Minister will follow the point in the document when he issues guidance and that he will not use so many acronyms that will confuse the public. 
 The document is important, but we should have debated it in our general discussion about sustainable development, and we should have the opportunity to discuss it on Report. I thought that the document was not available for me this morning; if it was, why did appear on the Message Board at 12 o'clock and why was it not given to me earlier? That worries me because even if I had walked across to the Table to pick it up, it would still have been too late. The Minister was right to say that he was being helpful when he gave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. I thanked him then and I thank him now, but I give notice that the matter must be discussed on Report.

Matthew Green: The Minister has not answered the question posed by amendment No. 384. He says that it is covered for two reasons, one being that the regional spatial strategy has sustainable development written all the way through it. I agree with him about that; it covers the identification of the need for a zone. The Minister then said that that matter would be covered at a later stage because it would be part of a local development document. The proposed new section 1B in clause 44(2) states:
''The local planning authority must consider the question for which part or parts of their area a simplified planning zone scheme is desirable.''
 The proposal does not refer to its being part of the local development document. My concern is that the Minister believes that it does, but nothing in the clause explicitly says so. Amendment No. 384 would create the overarching principle that it should be included. I am concerned that the Minister is making an assumption about what the Bill covers when its wording does not back up that assumption. I hope that he will intervene, but he shows no sign of doing so. I am tempted to force the matter to a vote. However, I believe, Mr. Pike, that if I force the amendment to a Division in Committee, I cannot do so on Report.

Peter Pike: I can give guidance on that. Matters can be discussed on Report when they have not been
 forced to a Division in Committee, but that is by no means a firm rule. However, I cannot guarantee that because I have no idea what measures will be submitted for debate on Report. That is up to the Speaker.

Matthew Green: Thank you, Mr. Pike. Experienced people, with whom I should like to discuss what the Minister has said, identified the hole. I shall then decide whether to bring the he matter back on Report. The Minister has not answered my question. He believes that he has covered it, but there may well be a flaw. I am genuinely trying to ensure that this part of the Bill works. I want sustainable development covered for the planning zones. I shall consult, and if I remain unconvinced by the Minister's argument, I will bring the issue back on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 365, in
'(2A) The inability to identify a contribution to achieving sustainable development shall not invalidate any document, strategy, scheme, statement or plan.'.
 The amendment need not detain us long. In view of our discussions, if not of those that we could have had if the matter had been brought to us in a sensible time, we have set out our stall by saying that absolutely everything has to be about sustainable development and, if it is not, it is not acceptable. There will always be the possibility that a document, a plan or whatever else it may be, might, under certain circumstances, as a one-off, not have a sustainability element to it. It may be impossible to say that that contributes to sustainability. However, it may necessarily contribute a great deal to the planning process that is being undertaken. The amendment probes the Minister for an explanation of the matter. It states: 
''The inability to identify a contribution to achieving sustainable development shall not invalidate''.
 Perhaps it would have been better to say that the inability shall not ''necessarily'' invalidate. There could be other reasons why such documents are invalid. Will the Minister explain the position whereby the acceptability of documents does not of itself add to the debate on sustainability?

Tony McNulty: I presume that the amendment seeks to provide a defence to any challenge to the effect that an RSS or local development document has not contributed sufficiently to sustainable development. No formulation used in other legislation qualifies the duties in that way, and the qualification would send out the wrong message. I am not aware that the absence of such a qualification has caused problems in other legislation.
 The clause 38 duty on the regional planning body and the local authority is to prepare the RSS and LDDs with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. That was dealt with at length this morning, and rightly so. The duty does not extend to requiring the RPB or local authority to contribute, whatever the circumstances. Provided that the RPB and local authorities have properly 
 demonstrated a positive intention for the RSS or LDDs to contribute, the duty will be met. The position is almost the reverse of the intention of an earlier amendment, which favoured ''have regard to'', not ''contribute to''. The amendment would weaken, not strengthen, the duty on the RPB and local authority. 
 I am worried that the amendment could give the message to, or even encourage, RPBs and local authorities to pay lip service to the policy. Given the contribution of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I am sure that that is not the intention. I reject the amendment in both practical and policy terms. It refers to an explicit duty to contribute. Bearing in mind the complexities of the environment in which we live, that statutory duty should not be in the Bill. The ability to contribute is important. The amendment would be ineffective. It would not get RPBs and local planning authorities off the hook. Given the message that it would send out and bearing it in mind that sustainability permeates other clauses, I strongly urge, in the context of our broad consensual discussion, that the probing amendment be withdrawn.

David Wilshire: As the Minister rightly said, it was not my intention to send out the wrong message, but to persuade him to say what he has said. If I have understood him correctly, he said that, even without the amendment, it is not the case that each part of the process has to contribute, whatever the circumstances. He said that he could envisage occasional circumstances in which there would not be a contribution, and that was the point on which I was trying to draw him. His remarks will be recorded in Hansard. Now that we know the Government's intentions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Local development orders

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in
clause 39, page 21, line 12, leave out 'Complusory' and insert 'Compulsory'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 244, in
clause 44, page 32, line 5, leave out 'satisifed' and insert 'satisfied'.

Matthew Green: The amendments would correct spelling mistakes.

Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his eagle-eyed spotting of two typographical mistakes. I read the Bill and did not spot them, but he did—good luck to him. As his eye is
 more eagle than mine, I want an assurance from him that there are no more typographical errors in the Bill. [Laughter.]

Tony McNulty: I would love to say that there is a technical term ''complusory'' that is different from compulsory, but I can only congratulate the hon. Gentleman on identifying the mistake. However, I ask him to withdraw the amendment purely because of the technical difficulties with printing, as it would cost an enormous amount to reprint the Bill between now and Tuesday next. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how much, because I do not have the details to hand. On the premise that I assure him—

Peter Pike: Order. I advise the Minister that if he does not accept the amendment, Government amendments will have to be moved at some stage. Although the errors are clearly typographical, they will continue to remain in the Bill, so the changes will have to be rendered through amendment at some stage.

Tony McNulty: That is what I was coming to. Like the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I do not have confidence that there are only two errors or that, given his busy recent schedule, the hon. Member for Ludlow has picked up all of them. I undertake that my counsel will go through the Bill to find all the typos, so that we can clean them up in one fell swoop.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister said that in the event of the amendments being passed, the Bill would have to be reprinted straight away, and he used that as a reason for rejecting them. My understanding is that a Bill is reprinted at the end of the Committee stage, after all the changes have been made. Unless the Minister is saying that he will not accept any changes on principle, it will have to be reprinted at some stage.

Peter Pike: I shall take that point of order, but I will let the Minister intervene, too.

Tony McNulty: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I meant to get across the point that there may be other typos. I am grateful that the two in question have been picked up, but we should get officials on the case to check the whole Bill before it is reprinted, so that those two are not sorted with a bunch of others still in the Bill.

Peter Pike: The position is that after amendments have been agreed in Committee, including Government amendments to take care of any such printing errors, the Bill is then reprinted. If the two amendments are accepted today, it will ultimately be reprinted, but not straight away.

David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. If the Government are suggesting that the amendments should be withdrawn and that the Government will return with their own amendments, am I right in thinking that we can table amendments to any clause, even if it has been debated? If we do not deal with the errors now and move on to subsequent clauses, does the Government have the power to table an amendment to a provision that we have already disposed of?

Peter Pike: The Government may not do that until Report. The hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill will stand with the errors until Report, when it would be possible for someone to move amendments again, if the Government did not do that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I speak to the amendments?

Peter Pike: Yes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have properly established parliamentary procedure in which we scrutinise Bills line by line in Standing Committees. Here are two of the simplest errors that one could possibly wish to encounter, and the Government are resisting changes. The Committee would look completely incompetent if we reported the Bill to the House with two glaring spelling mistakes uncorrected. The Government are asking us to do an extraordinary thing. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the Minister is absolutely determined to send the Bill out of Committee with no amendments. We should shout from the rooftops if the Government do not accept these two amendments—the Green amendments—which are excellent. The errors were well spotted, and the hon. Member for Ludlow deserves the Committee's congratulations.

Matthew Green: I had no idea that two spelling mistakes would cause so much debate. Frankly, I do not mind whether the amendments are accepted now or on Report.

Paul Beresford: Might the hon. Gentleman tell the Government which superior form of spell check he uses?

Matthew Green: I did not put the Bill through a spell check. If the hon. Gentleman were to read my speaking notes, he would find many more spelling mistakes in them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will push his amendment to a vote. It would be extraordinary if the Committee allowed the Bill to go unamended when it contains spelling mistakes. The Government must respond.

Matthew Green: I am at a loss to know what to do. I am assured by the Minister that he will bring the matter back on Report, perhaps finding even more spelling mistakes before then. I understand his reasons for wanting to do that, but I remain dumbstruck that two spelling mistakes should have generated quite so much interest. I had thought that I would just stand up and say that they were there, and that by the time I had sat down, the amendments would have been accepted. Clearly, that was not the case.
 None the less, I shall have to disappoint the hon. Member for Cotswold. I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance that he will go through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb to find any further spelling mistakes, and will table amendments on Report. I am not here to win victories about spelling mistakes; I came into politics to be involved in bigger issues than that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: No.

Peter Pike: As an hon. Member has objected to leave being withdrawn, I must put the Question on the amendment. For the guidance of the Committee, the Question will be on amendment No. 240, in clause 39, page 21, line 12, as listed on the Amendment Paper.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I really am not clear what we are to vote on.

Peter Pike: I want everyone to be clear, which is why I have referred to the amendment. The procedure is unusual, but it is in order. Once the amendment has been moved, it is the property of the Committee. When the Question was put that leave should be given to withdraw it, the Committee disagreed. I shall now put the Question on the amendment to the Committee.

Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I am sorry but I am relatively new to this place. Are we to vote on whether my amendment should be withdrawn, or on the amendment itself?

Peter Pike: I gave my guidance so that hon. Members would know exactly what they will vote on. I am putting the Question on the amendment, and all hon. Members should now know what they are voting on. If one voice dissents, an amendment cannot be withdrawn. The vote to come will be on the amendment. Is everyone clear on that?
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Peter Pike: Let me make it absolutely clear that when an amendment is put at the end of a debate, if the mover seeks to withdraw it, there is a question before Members. The Chairman always puts that question to withdraw, and I have put that every time. If an hon. Member objects, I have no option but to put that amendment to the Committee.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 217, in
clause 39, page 21, line 29, at end insert
'but only after giving one year's notice'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 368, in 
clause 39, page 22, line 30, leave out subsection (8).
 Amendment No. 218, in 
clause 39, page 22, line 31, at end insert
'but only after giving one year's notice'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We now move on to part 4 of the Bill, which is on development control. The first clause in that part is on local development orders. It might help the Committee if I quote the first sentence
 of the explanatory notes on clause 39 to put it into context:
''By providing for local permitted development rights, clause 39 introduces a new procedure to allow local planning authorities to expand on the permitted development rights set nationally by way of development orders.''
 Those permitted development rights allow the developer or applicant to carry out a particular development without having to obtain planning permission. They were originally set out in the general permitted development order. 
 Under this new procedure, the general permitted development order can be varied by the individual local planning authority. That is quite a radical procedure, laid out carefully in the Bill. Amendment No. 217 relates to new section 61A(6), which says: 
''A local planning authority may revoke a local development order at any time.''
 To put that into context, developers, applicants and others will know from their local authority what permitted developments are allowed, without having to obtain planning permission. A statement of development principles will be drawn up by the local authority at some stage, and everyone will be entitled to obtain a copy. 
 If a local development order can be revoked at any time, a developer might be on the point of carrying out a material development but suddenly find that the local authority has withdrawn the permitted development right on a whim. It seems right to us that that should be allowed only after giving one year's notice. I do not know whether one year is the correct period, but the local authority should not be able to withdraw that right immediately, on a whim. It should have to give some notice. 
 The only exception to that should be if a local authority is trying to prevent an immediate abuse or nuisance. If that is the Minister's defence against our amendment, he should be able to frame a specific amendment to deal with those exceptional circumstances. 
 Amendment No. 368 would leave out subsection (8), which says that schedule 4A makes provision in connection with local development orders. Again, the aim seems sensible. There has to be some certainty in the system, and we need to find out from the Minister exactly what subsection (8) means. 
 Amendment No. 218 is intended to do the opposite. It would prevent an order from coming into effect until one year had passed. The orders may involve a negative power, preventing some form of development, or a positive power, allowing a particular class of development. 
 It may help the Committee if I give examples of what is covered under the general permitted development order. One widely used power is the general extension of houses by up to 10 per cent. of floor area. The clause might vary that power. Another example is where an agricultural building is a certain distance away from the highway. It does not have to have planning permission, but its design still has to be 
 approved by the local planning authority. Another power under the general permitted development order is for certain activities—for example, car boot sales—that can take place in less than 14 days. If they take place more than 14 days, they need planning permission. 
 All those events and developments might be varied by the clause. In the same way that we seek to fetter the local authority's ability to withdraw an order without giving notice, so we seek to fetter the Secretary of State's powers. He should have to give notice of one year, as in amendment No. 218, before revoking or modifying any powers. That seems only reasonable. 
 This is a relatively complicated matter, and other aspects will be covered by further amendments, but it will be useful to hear what the Minister has to say.

David Wilshire: Amendment No. 368 relates to what seems a very curious subsection. It says that schedule 4A makes provision in connection with local development orders. I am at a loss to know why that appears in that form: it is a statement of the obvious. Either schedule 4A makes provision or it does not.

Matthew Green: I, too, am at a loss. Amendment No. 368 relates to subsection (8) on page 22, not subsection (8) on page 21, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. Perhaps he can clarify that.

David Wilshire: I stand corrected and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that the Minister wants to respond to my curiosity about the subsection to which I was referring. If he says that all statements of the obvious should appear in the Bill, we will have an awful lot of amendments. That subsection adds nothing. It does not say why that reference exists. I will not repeat the point at the stand part stage, but perhaps the Minister can cover it at some point.
 Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 relate to giving notice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said. I am not wedded to one year either; it is the principle that matters. Someone might do an awful lot of work making plans and preparations and incur a fair amount of costs, because they know that what they are about to do is covered by a local development order and that they do not need permission for it. All of a sudden, that is revoked with no notice at all. One day the order is there; the next it is not. Suddenly, all that effort, time and money is wasted because the local planning authority or the Secretary of State, who have to be pursued, say no. People will have incurred expenditure and made preparations in good faith only to find that it cannot be done. 
 Solving the problem by insisting on giving notice may not appeal to the Minister. I can imagine him arguing that in the six months before the change, all sorts of people could get up to something that the Secretary of State or local planning authority do not want. Alternatively, we could allow the Secretary of State or the local planning authority to compensate people for their wasted time, effort and expenditure.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I help my hon. Friend, whom I may have led down the path of error? I also read a reference to page 21, but it should be page 22,
 and amendment No. 368 is designed to delete subsection (8) of proposed section 61B, which states:
''The appropriate authority may at any time by order revoke a local development order if it thinks it is expedient to do so''
 at any time. My hon. Friend would agree that that is a draconian power.

David Wilshire: I am grateful. If what I said earlier is the only rubbish I speak in Committee, I shall be eternally grateful and quite surprised. Now that my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to what I should have been talking about, I shall accept his invitation to continue.
 Subsection (8) confers once again jackboot powers on the Secretary of State. The local planning authority may be content with a plan, but the Government do not care about local democracy or what local people want, so the Secretary of State can order them to carry out the Government's plans. If the Minister will not accept the ''giving notice'' argument, I hope that he will accept that jackboots are not good for local democracy. We are not wedded to one year and would accept any reasonable period, but the Minister should comment on the problem.

Matthew Green: The Conservatives have a point, but the one-year period may be over the top. If someone were half way through building an extension under permitted developments and the local authority were subsequently to remove the right to permissive development orders, what would be the legal liabilities in each direction? The Bill does not address that problem. As I said, a year is probably too long, but some notice should be given and we need clarification of the position where work has already been started and the Secretary of State changes an order. People could find that their project, begun legally, had been deprived of legality. The hon. Members for Cotswold and for Spelthorne have acknowledged that they are not wedded to the one-year period, but the problem remains of what will happen if an order is withdrawn.

Sydney Chapman: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne on amendments Nos. 217 and 218. I believe that one year is about right, though I am open to persuasion about other periods. If a local authority can revoke a local development order at any time, the power may be used unfairly. Surely it is right to provide reasons and to give notice—a simple point about fairness and equity.
 The British Property Federation has made another point, which takes the opposite approach. As I understand its point, which is powerfully engrained on my memory, it is not just a question of revoking the order but the possible consequences of doing so. It would be unfair if a planning permission were taken away. It would be immensely helpful if the Minister could assure us that the revocation of any order, arbitrarily or not, by a local planning authority could not lead to the arbitrary termination of a planning consent, provided that that planning consent was carried out within the normal time given under the principal legislation.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to Opposition Members. They have clearly alighted on the issue of what to do about development work that is started in a
 particular area. We are jumping the gun a little. I will have more to say on that when we come to amendment No. 366. Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 would require the LPA, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly of Wales to give one year's notice. That presumably is to allow developers who intend to take advantage of the permission to develop rights granted by the order the opportunity to carry out works before the rights are withdrawn.
 For reasons that I will come to, I do not agree that a year's notice should be required. There may be circumstances where the authority, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly discovers that a local development order has had an unwanted impact on an area. In such cases the order should be revoked as soon as possible. Any development completed before revocation would have been lawfully completed. This is not about getting something torn down because an LDO has been revoked. 
 Amendment No. 368 would prevent the Secretary of State or the National Assembly from ever revoking a local development order. The power to revoke would be used only in extreme circumstances. We have no intention of using it on a whim, but it is important for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to have that power as there may be cases where, although the policy in a development plan document was acceptable, the effects of the related order would have an unwanted or unwarranted impact on the national planning policy that became apparent only after it had been made.

Paul Beresford: I am interested that the Minister is saying that when anything is completed, it would be allowed to stand. Normally in planning that is the case when anything is commenced. What would happen in the situation described by the hon. Member of Ludlow, when a project is part of the way through construction?

Tony McNulty: That is precisely the point that I said I would deal with under amendment No. 366, which deals specifically with uncompleted developments. In the cases that I described, the local planning authority may not see any need to revoke the order, but the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales should be able to do so if they think it necessary. That would not be done in a capricious, wilful or whimsical way, but because of its impact once it had been started or completed. Revoking a local development order does not mean that the development cannot take place, merely that it goes through the usual requirements for planning permission.
 Section 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as applied by new section 61C(2), deals with the compensation point and provides that a local or planning authority will be liable to pay compensation if an application for development, which would have been allowed under local planning order, is submitted within a year of the order being revoked and is refused or approved subject to conditions other than those imposed by the order. That echoes provisions relating to changes to national permission to develop rights 
 and will ensure that a developer is not disadvantaged if local permission to develop rights is withdrawn. 
 On another small point, schedule 4A makes provision in connection with the local development orders. Subsection (8)—the rogue subsection (8) that we debated to begin with—states: 
''Schedule 4A makes provision in connection with local development orders'',
 referring to schedule 4A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in which the permitted development rights are laid out in the first instance.

Sydney Chapman: The Minister has been extremely helpful, but I want to clarify matters. The reason I raised amendment No. 366 before we reached it was that we shall of course vote on the present group before we come to it. If amendment No. 366 had been tabled by, I should have been more confident.
 I confess that we are dealing with a point that I had missed—assuming that it is true. Is the Minister saying that even if a local development order—or plan, because we are dealing with the existing legislation—were arbitrarily revoked by a local planning authority, the principal Act would take precedence, to the extent that it specifically states that any planning permission given remains valid even if the development order or local development plan is revoked? If I could have that assurance, my mind would be at ease.

Tony McNulty: Part of the confusion arises when the hon. Gentleman talks about planning permission. The establishment of a local development order would effectively be a collectivised—I should not have said that—version of permitted development rights in an area, outwith the normal permitted development rights that the hon. Member for Cotswold referred to, such as entitlement relating to a house. If, for the duration of the order, something was built entirely legitimately in the terms of the order and completed before the revocation, it would stand. It would have been created within the local development order zone, entirely appropriately, before revocation. Revocation is not imposed retrospectively.
 It is half cheeky of me to do this, perhaps, but with your indulgence, Mr. Pike—because I take the point about the order of voting—I may, to help the Committee, mention that amendment No. 366 raises an important question. I have a lot of sympathy with it, and undertake to consider it. I do not want to get involved in a debate about it, but perhaps it would be useful, bearing in mind that other decisions must be taken first, to put that offer on the table now.

Matthew Green: One thing that strikes me about the withdrawal of the local development order is the absence of any provision insisting on publicity. I realise that once an order is revoked, it is revoked, and the person concerned has a duty to find out, but I think that some requirement should be imposed on the local authority to ensure that architects and others who would normally be consulted by a person who was taking advantage of a local development order would know as soon as the order was revoked. They
 should not just be expected to realise that there had been a change without being told.

Tony McNulty: Unless I am told otherwise in a hurry, I shall assume that the publicity and information dispersal duties of a local planning authority that are set out in the broad development control legislation and functions will prevail under the clause as elsewhere, and that the local planning authority will have a duty to make its decision known at the earliest opportunity; I suspect that the ways in which that would be done are already established, either through the development control legislation or functions, or under the umbrella of the statement of community involvement, which would contain the whys and wherefores of how a local planning authority intended to consult and to publicise information about any aspect of its planning and development control functions.
 That is my assumption and no one is telling me otherwise. If I find out that I am wrong I shall let the hon. Member for Ludlow know, but the overarching duty of local planning authorities for publicity and the dissemination of information and decisions is as appropriate for local development orders as for any other aspect of the Bill. In view of that, I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendment and look forward to generosity on the next item.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a useful debate on the important matter of permitted development rights. I am not sure that we are all talking exactly the same language. To make the matter absolutely clear, the rights in question are permitted development rights that do not require planning permission. They are enshrined in the principal Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has made clear. We are talking about local planning authorities being able to amend those general permitted development rights. If they amend them, and if they have gone through the procedure of producing a statement of amendment, it seems totally wrong, unless abuses or emergencies have taken place, that the local authority or the Secretary of State should have the power to revoke them. Under the rules of natural justice, applicants or developers should be allowed a reasonable time in which to be informed of the changes. Indeed, I should have thought that the rules of natural justice would also require a procedure that allowed people to make representations.
 Having said that, my words will be on the record, and I have no doubt that others, more knowledgeable on the matter, will look at the matter carefully in another place. The Government may have to consider whether a period should normally be allowed before those draconian powers are operated. However, for the moment, we have discussed this matter as fully as we can. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 366, in
clause 39, page 21, line 29, at end insert—
'(6A) Any development permitted by an order revoked under subsection (6) which has been started but not completed shall be entitled to be completed notwithstanding the revocation of the order permitting the development.'.
 I rise, Mr. Pike, with huge anticipation. Can it possibly be, for the second time in an undistinguished career that spreads over 15 years, that I shall make a change to a Government Bill? If I achieve that trick for the second time, I sincerely hope that it will not have similar consequences to those of my last success, which was a change to a local government Bill.

Peter Pike: Order. I was a member of the Committee that considered that Bill. We should not go too far down that road, because it was a controversial clause.

David Wilshire: To put the Committee out of its misery, Mr. Pike, you and I know that it has become known as section 28. I wonder whether there is likely to be any abseiling from the Gallery in the other place, or demonstrations outside, if the Minister gives way on this amendment. I suspect not.
 I shall not delay the Committee except to say that two issues are involved. I say that so that the Minister can understand where my mind was going when I tabled the amendment. As far as I can see, if someone has already started a development when a change is made, the chances are that he will be entitled to complete it. I am not sure, and the Minister can probably clarify that point. That is my first worry. If the Minister wants to deal with that, and I hope make clear it that that is not what the Bill would do, I shall applaud him and be grateful. 
 The other issue is best explained by using an example; the one that comes to mind is that of a housing association that wants to improve a large and fairly old housing estate. A lot of repetitive work is involved—perhaps an extension at the back of each house on the estate—and the work is covered by the order until it is revoked. The housing association might have done 40 houses and have another 100 to go, but suddenly—chop!—it is told to stop. 
 If someone has started to build a garage, they must be able to finish it. However, if a developer has started doing something on a grand scale that involves a series of jobs that, in themselves, are complete entities, it would be unfair and unreasonable, half-way through the redevelopment, to say that the developer could not continue or that he would have to ask for permission to do it differently.

Paul Beresford: rose—
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) rose—

Peter Pike: Sir Paul Beresford.

Paul Beresford: I am sorry to have taken precedence over my hon. Friend. It was accidental.

Peter Pike: I spotted you first.

Paul Beresford: I am sorry to be a little Machiavellian, but the clause will delight the lawyers. It is a classic example. My hon. Friend points out that natural justice dictates that if one has commenced one ought to be able to finish. However, I can think of one rather Machiavellian and difficult gentleman in one of my local planning areas who has been a thorn in the side of the local authority for a considerable time. Will the Minister give me a definition of ''started''? I can imagine that gentleman, and I shall not name him,
 moving three bricks and then saying to the committee that he had commenced because he had had the development vaguely in mind for the past 15 years but had not quite got round to it.
 It will be intriguing to hear the Minister because a great many holes are being dug in this Bill and a great many lawyers are looking at the cash register.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was very pleased that you called my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley first, Mr. Pike, because it gave me a few seconds to consult the principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 55(1) defines ''development'' and is engrained on the heart of every planning practitioner:
''Subject to the following provisions of this section, in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, 'development,' means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land.''
 Planning practitioners knew it parrot-fashion; they had to learn it for exams; they almost dreamed about it. Having described what a development is, the Act defines time when a development had begun in section 56. 
1) ''Subject to the following provisions of this section, for the purposes of this Act development of land shall be taken to be initiated—
(a) if the development consists of the carrying out of operations, at the time when those operations are begun;
(b) if the development consists of a change in use, at the time when the new use is instituted;
(c) if the development consists both of the carrying out of operations and of a change in use, at the earlier of the times mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).''
 I hope that the Minister will say that our probing amendment is unnecessary. However, if any of the above things have happened, the development is considered to have begun. It would be quite wrong for the local authority or the Secretary of State using the powers proposed in clause 39 to revoke that permitted development right. I hope that our probing amendment will elicit from the Minister the answer that I seek.

Sydney Chapman: I wait with bated breath to hear the Minister's response. May I clarify one point? Whether we are talking about planning permission that has been given or a permitted development, which does not need planning permission, we are not necessarily talking about a development that has started. Usually, there is a five-year period, although it may be reduced to three years, between the granting of an application and starting the development. If a development has started, only to have the local development order revoked, it is vital that it be permitted to continue. I also want an assurance that any planning permission given or permitted development existing at the time should be allowed its original time span.
 I ask this because clause 39 adds sections to the principal Act, and I want to know whether there is a section in the principal Act that deals with the point that I raised. If there is, I will be satisfied; and my hon. 
 Friend the Member for Spelthorne need not press amendment No. 366. If there is not, however, it becomes extremely important—irrespective of whether there is compensation—in the interests of equity and fairness to press my hon. Friend's amendment.

Tony McNulty: Many of the comments made are entirely fair. As I said earlier, this is worth considering further. To answer the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, clause 39 was drawn up to follow on from the general permitted development order rather than the development clauses that the hon. Member for Cotswold referred to. Under current law, if the Secretary of State issues an amendment to the general permitted development order, anything counter to that stops, however advanced or detailed, and planning permission must be secured in the normal fashion.
 I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment, which would allow 
''Any development permitted by an order revoked . . . to be completed notwithstanding the revocation''.
 That would give the LDOs some degree of certainty to developers, which is partly their purpose. If a development is permitted, then when the developers start, they will not suddenly find that the commission is no longer valid if the LDO is revoked. 
 It is worth considering the matter further in relation to our desire to fit the development order at the local level into the broad framework of the GPDO with regard to permitted development rights. However, I accept what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, notwithstanding compensation and other issues. That is not least for the reasons that his hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) alluded to about what ''started'' means in that context. Is it as sections 54 and 55 say in the 1990 Act, something more germane in the GPDO, or something in between? The matter is worthy of further scrutiny, and I should like to consider it much further.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Far from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet receiving the assurance that he seeks on the five-year period after withdrawal of the GPDO, the Minister has said something far more draconian. I want to know whether I have understood correctly. Suppose that the local authority development order allowed a 10 per cent. extension generally, that somebody had started that development, and that the Secretary of State revoked that power. Would that person then have to stop and seek planning permission?

Tony McNulty: I was trying to be kind earlier. The matter has nothing to do with individual household's permitted development rights. It has nothing to do with an extension, 10 per cent. or otherwise, of volume on current permitted development rights—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It does.

Tony McNulty: It does not. The provisions seek to replicate the national GPDO at a local level, in the context of a local development scheme. They are about broader concerns than people's extensions and how they relate to the volume of their house. For example, a
 local authority might want to revitalise a town centre. Applications for particular parades to go from non-retail to retail use will be approved on the nod, rather than revision being sought, because the local authority wants retail in that high street. The authority will not give that permission to any non-retail application, or to any application to change from retail to non-retail, as an attraction to get people back into the high street for retail. The provisions have absolutely nothing to do with 10 per cent. house extensions, which are currently covered by the permitted development order—they go far beyond that. The hon. Gentleman should please know what he is talking about.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is digging himself into quite a big hole. As I read the clause, it would be perfectly possible for a local planning authority to vary the general permitted development right from, say, 10 per cent. of the floor space to 12 per cent., as a general permitted development right within its locality. Suppose that that happened, as I think the clause would allow. Is the Minister really saying that if somebody in that locality had started a development for which they had permitted development rights, whether it were an extension or a wider development—the Minister alluded to the regeneration of a whole town centre—they would have to stop and seek full planning permission if the local authority or Secretary of State revoked or withdrew that right?

Tony McNulty: I wish the hon. Gentleman would listen, as his hon. Friends seem to manage to. What he says is precisely not what I am saying, even if we use his example, which I do not accept. The amendment alludes to a position on which the clause is extremely weak. Even if a local development order were legitimately revoked, what would we do if it had been started? The hon. Member for Mole Valley asked what we mean by ''started'', which is worthy of further exploration and scrutiny, and I have asked the hon. Member for Spelthorne to remove amendment No. 366 to allow us readily to examine the matter.
 I do not know where the hon. Member for Cotswold got half of his contribution, which certainly did not come from listening to his colleagues or me because I have said nothing of the sort. I exhort the hon. Member for Spelthorne to withdraw the amendment, although his point is worth looking at, and I am grateful to him for raising it.

David Wilshire: When a Government have a large majority, one has to be grateful for small mercies. It would be unkind and unfair not to say that I am pleased to have persuaded the Minister to reconsider something. It would have been nicer if he had said, ''This is what we are going to do'', but that would have been expecting too much—I do not mean that unkindly. I accept the spirit in which he has made his offer and am satisfied that he will think constructively about the spirit of what has been said. I look forward to a further debate on the issue and I hope to be able to support the Government on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 242, in
clause 39, page 22, line 13, leave out
'matter which it thinks is relevant',
and insert 'material considerations,'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 367, in
clause 39, page 22, line 14, at end insert
'and must take account of all representations received'.

Matthew Green: I know that the Minister does not believe that Opposition Members might try to be helpful, but amendment No. 242 is an attempt to be helpful. The clause deals with the powers of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to call in a proposed local development order and direct the local planning authority to modify the order before it is adopted. In considering a local development order called in by the Secretary of State, subsection (3) requires the appropriate authority to take account of any matter that it thinks is relevant.
 I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the wording is legally vague and could give rise to a legal challenge on whether the Secretary of State is right to think that an issue is relevant. The advice that I have been given is that it would be clearer to relate the provision to a relatively understandable planning term by requiring the Secretary of State to take account of any material consideration. The amendment would have the effect of narrowing the factors to purely planning considerations. It may have other implications, but to avoid lawyers running up large bills, a matter to which members of the Committee continually allude, the Minister might be minded to be kind. Given that he is showing signs of kindness, today is obviously the day on which to consider such amendments. 
 It is interesting that amendment No. 367 has been grouped with amendment No. 242—I am not questioning the Chair's judgment—because it relates to other things. It would strengthen the right to public consultation, and if that is its intention it is worthy of consideration. I will be interested to hear the Minister's advice on whether amendment No. 242 will assist in tightening up the cause for legal challenges.

David Wilshire: Amendment No. 367 prompts me to say that one wins some and one loses some in this business. It is inferior to amendment No. 242. The hon. Member for Ludlow suggested that there might be broader subtleties to it, but there are none. It may have become clear to the Committee that there are occasions when I have tabled an amendment and have struggled later to remember what I had been thinking of at the time. However, on this occasion I am very clear as to what I was thinking—exactly the same as the hon. Member for Ludlow.
 What concerns me about this subsection, as it stands, is the wording: 
''The appropriate authority may take into account any matter which it thinks is relevant.''
 That is unhelpful. Any authority, if it does not like what it hears, could say 'you may think it is relevant, Mr. Pike, but we do not'. I am sure that is not what is intended. What I sought to do in amendment No 357 was to take away the power to dismiss something if it was not convenient, by saying they must take account of everything even if they do not agree with it. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow has used fewer words. We must take account of material considerations and there can be an objective debate about what is a material consideration. What matters are deemed relevant is subjective, and it is very difficult to mount an appeal against that. I shall not seek to press amendment No. 367 but would be happy to support amendment No. 242.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Ludlow has hit upon a useful topic with amendment No. 242. If I may echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, the wording
''which it thinks is relevant''
 is unsatisfactory. If the matter ever came to judicial review the judge would have to make a subjective judgment as to what it was reasonable for the local authority to consider, not what was reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore the hon. Gentleman's wording provides greater certainty and clarity.

Tony McNulty: With respect, that all sounds very good, but it is not. There is nothing magical about ''material considerations'', which is an accepted phrase in planning terms. It is an entirely accepted phrase in terms of material planning matters when dealing with individual applications. In the context of the discussion of local development orders, what the hon. Gentleman considers to be material planning matters will be just as open to challenge as the phrase already in the clause. The reason why the clause is slightly broader is that broader issues may well arise, such as those that we have debated on land use. Those matters might not be captured by a narrower definition of material considerations. However, they are captured, albeit in a clumsy phrase, by using the word ''relevant''. In that regard, it would on balance be unhelpful to use words that planners know to mean certain things in a context in which they would mean something quite different. Material considerations are appropriate for the planning or application process.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister consider the rather clumsy wording in the current Bill? In the light of recent groups of amendments, will he see how it could be tightened to reduce legal challenges? That was my intention. If he is prepared to do that, I will consider withdrawing.

Tony McNulty: Being generous twice in a row would make me far too tired to consider the rest of our deliberations. In one sense ''material considerations'' will narrow things down too much. I refer to the example I gave earlier. If we are talking about the economic vitality of a particular shopping precinct, or part of a high street, several other factors above and beyond the narrowly defined—albeit well established—concerns and material considerations
 should be considered. However clumsy it is, the phrase as it stands captures the meaning, but I take on board the broad thrust of what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Matthew Green: I was not hoping that the Minister would take on board the words ''material considerations'' because I see where he is coming from when he says that they are too narrow. I was hoping that he would find some way of tightening the wording in order to bring forward an amendment. That may be a suitable way forward.

Tony McNulty: I will happily look at the wording because I described it as clumsy, but the hon. Gentleman should not hold his breath. I cannot be more honest than that. I will certainly look again at the wording on the premise that the amendment is defective. I ask for it to be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would like to put on record the advice given by the Law Society:
''In legal terms, this wording is too vague and could give rise to legal challenge is the Secretary of State right to 'think' an issue to be relevant. It would be clearer to relate the provision to a relatively understandable planning term by requiring the Secretary of State to take account of any 'material consideration'.''
 The Minister has said that he is prepared to look at the wording again. He is right to do so, and we welcome that.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The phrase ''material considerations'' is used in clause 37(6). I accept that there are different definitions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know from his professional experience that the term ''material considerations'' is used frequently in other planning Acts.

Tony McNulty: Absolutely, but that is within the context of planning decisions and the development control process, not the process under discussion. At the risk of sounding slightly facetious, given that so many amendments are coming in from so many quarters, we should keep a running score sheet. The Law Society has not done terribly well today.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not think that it is very helpful to slate the Law Society or any other group. It provides material in order to improve the Bill, which is the business of the Committee. The Law Society has raised a legitimate point, which is on the record. No doubt others reading the record will consider the point, and it may be raised again, either in the other place, or on Report.
 The lead amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. No doubt he will decide whether he wants to withdraw it.

Matthew Green: The Minister has taken the point on board. Although he says that I should not hold my breath, I will half hold it in the hope that he finds a way of tightening up the wording. It is in everyone's interest that it is made as tight as possible, which will prevent legal challenge. Hopefully, the Minister and his team will see if it can be improved in some way.
 With that assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 243, in
clause 39, page 22, line 24, at end insert
'and must provide reasons for that direction'.
 The amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide reasons for any direction to a local planning authority to modify a local development order. Suggested new section 61B to the 1990 Act provides the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales with a power to call in a local development order and direct the local planning authority to modify the order before it can be adopted. There has to be some duty on the Secretary of State to provide reasons for any direction. I am sure that the Secretary of State would mean to provide reasons, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us that that would happen anyway. It would be useful to include that requirement, so that any future Secretary of State is held to account. 
 There needs to be a duty on the Secretary on State to provide reasons for any direction to an authority to modify an order, otherwise there could be a legal challenge to the direction. The power to direct is currently linked to the Secretary of State thinking that a local development order is unsatisfactory, which is a vague term. I make no bones about the fact that I am attempting to help the Government. I hope that this is something that the Government would want to do anyway and that they will accept the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Again, the hon. Member for Ludlow is on to something. As he said, under subsection (5)(b) of the proposed new section, when the appropriate authority, which is the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, approves or rejects an order, it has to give reasons for that decision. Yet subsection (6), to which his amendment relates, states:
''If the appropriate authority thinks that a local development order is unsatisfactory it may at any time before the order is adopted by the local planning authority direct them to modify it in accordance with the direction.''
 That is a fairly powerful directive power. If the local authority, having gone through the due process in the Bill, comes up with a local development order, the Secretary of State should have to give reasons for varying that order. If he does not give reasons, I suspect that the matter will rapidly end up in the High Court on an application for judicial review. I hope that the Government will think carefully about the matter between now and the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, Amendment No. 243 requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to provide reasons when issuing a direction to the LPA to modify a local development order. I appreciate the sentiments of the amendment. We would expect both the Secretary of State and the Assembly to provide reasons for the direction. However, we do not consider that it is necessary to specify that in primary legislation. When informing the LPA of the
 changes that it should make, the appropriate authority will need to explain how the document is deficient. How can it ask the LPA to modify what it considers to be deficient if it does not point out the deficiencies, which are the reasons for the direction? The direction does not flutter down from on high in a vacuum; nor does it come down by diktat or jackboot or anything else. Clearly, the appropriate authority must inform the local authority why it thinks that there are deficiencies and provide the reasons given for its being deficient.

Matthew Green: Is there any reason why the words in the amendment should not be included in the Bill to make it clear that that is exactly what the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will do? The Minister has just told us that that is exactly what they will do, so why should that not be in the Bill to make things clear to everyone?

Tony McNulty: Because there is a huge difference between clarity and superfluousness. The amendment is unnecessary. One could not interpret the Bill to mean that if and when the appropriate authority fancies it, it can tell a local planning authority, without giving substantive reasons, ''Change that local development order. We don't like it.'' As the hon. Member for Cotswold said, if that were the case, there would be High Court writs and judicial reviews flying around all over the place, as a matter of due process and good administrative law. So I accept the sentiments, but that degree of clarity is unnecessary. It is implicit in the entire arrangement that that is what will prevail. Things do not happen in a vacuum. In that context, the amendment is otiose, unnecessary and would not add clarity because it relates to something that will happen anyway. I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green: The Minister has assured us that the appropriate authorities will give reasons. I find it slightly baffling that he does not accept the amendment, as he cannot give any reasons for not doing so apart from the fact that it adds a few words. I suspect that the real reason why he has not accepted it is that he has probably given his dose of kindness to the Opposition today.

Tony McNulty: Not necessarily.

Matthew Green: This is an exciting day. In the interests of moving on to that exciting opportunity when we get another bite at the cherry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike: I hope that I am in the Chair when we reach that exciting moment.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call Mr. Clifton-Brown, I must say that I had considered not having a clause stand part debate. However, I am prepared to allow a fairly concise and tight debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I must ask for the Committee's indulgence. The Law Society has provided a slightly
 long note on this. However, having read it several times, it is worth putting on the record.
 The Law Society says: 
''The power to specify an area where a local development order can not be made will have a significant economic impact. It will have the effect of blighting the prospect of development in that area by means of a local development order.
This runs contrary to the intention of the Government's policy on local development orders, namely that they will implement policies in a development plan document and provide a means of encouraging and speeding up development in specific areas.
Surely if the Government objects to a development, either in a specific area or of a specific nature, it should intervene at the time of the preparation of the development plan document rather than waiting until the local authority comes to implement that policy through a local development order.''
 It continues: 
''Potentially that policy will have far reaching implications. If there was a local development order favouring the construction of tall buildings in part of an urban centre, there would in effect be no means of objecting to the granting of permission for an office tower block, for example. In our view that would be grounds for challenge under the Human Rights Act as contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Again, would the existence of a local development order override the requirement for an environmental impact assessment of a particular development proposal? We suspect that the Government has chosen not to implement proposals for Business Planning Zones, where planning restrictions would be less restrictive, and regards local development orders as the means to achieve the same result.
If that assumption is correct, then the Government should be more frank about the policy underlying local development orders.''
 The Law Society regards the proposals on local development orders 
''as an alternative mechanism whereby development control can be relaxed in a particular area or type of development when it would be more appropriate for that objective to be achieved through the creation of a Business Planning Zone.''
 It also suggests that the Bill 
''will need to provide for the situation where a development has been granted permission under a local development order which is subsequently revoked. The example of section 89(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides for planning permission in an enterprise zone to cease unless the development authorised has been begun.''
 Proposed new section 61A will impose a fairly draconian power, which will be useful. However, I am slightly concerned about the inconsistency that will exist between one authority and another. Moreover, a large developer with a development in a different planning authority will find it difficult to know which regime he is operating under, especially if the Secretary of State starts to use his revocation powers because he likes one authority's plans and not another's. That could become quite messy. 
 The Government will need to clarify that point in their mind, and I suspect that we may return to this complex matter on Report or in another place. I have no objection to the clause standing part of the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not object to it either.

Tony McNulty: I apologise for rushing out and in again; I had a call of nature. I should be courteous and tell everybody, although I am sure that they would rather not know.
 I wish to respond to one simple point. We shall, by order, ensure that LDOs in no way impinge on the environmental impact assessment process. Other than that, I am grateful for the Committee's acclamation of the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Local development orders: procedure

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 358, in
schedule 1, page 59, line 24, at end insert
'but must complete a review not later than five years from the adoption of the order or the previous decision of it.'.
 This is a fairly straightforward amendment. As with so many of the amendments that my colleagues and I have tabled on the issue of time scales, the purpose is simply to prompt a discussion. If the Minister is persuaded by our arguments in principle but thinks that five years is wrong, we shall not have a ding-dong. However, the principle is important. 
 At present, there is no time scale for a review, and the amendment suggests five years. When we discussed sustainable development this morning, one recurring theme was that, like so much else, it is an ever changing concept. Scientific knowledge and technology, too, are forever changing; indeed, they seem to be changing at an ever faster rate. At the very outset of the Committee's proceedings, the Minister said that he hoped that the Bill would ensure that regional plans, in particular, were produced much more quickly. He said that the old process was very cumbersome and that things went on for years. 
 Given that the Minister wants the initial plans to be produced more quickly, we should also turn our attention, through the amendment, to the question of how often revisions should take place. It would be sensible for reviews to take place every five years, even if the conclusion were that nothing needed changing after all. At least a review would have been carried out. That is the spirit behind the time scale suggested in the amendment, which would take account of the Minister's wish for things to happen more quickly. That said, we are not arguing about the actual number of years.

Matthew Green: I would like to add my support to the amendment. In a sense, it proposes the local equivalent of a sunset clause. I am generally in favour of such clauses, because there is far too much legislation lying around that is out of date, or not used. It would be sensible to review orders after a reasonable time. We can argue about the number of years, but the amendment is worthy.

Sydney Chapman: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said. We discussed such a provision in a previous debate, and it is important to hold reviews and specify when they are to take place. The period would be calculated not from when the authority last held a review but from when the order was approved. I would stick with a period of five years, and the local planning authority should
 review its order within that time to see what changes should be made to bring it up to date.
 I would not describe the proposal as a sunset clause; it is anything but. As I understand it, a sunset clause means that legislation ceases to have effect after a certain period. None the less, I understand what the hon. Member for Ludlow says, and I fully support the amendment.

Tony McNulty: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the proposal in the amendment is not a sunset clause by any means. If it were, however, the sun would have gone down four years before, as we will see.
 The amendment is completely erroneous and irrelevant. I entirely agree with the thrust of what hon. Members have said about local planning authorities needing to check regularly to ensure that local development plans are still appropriate. The amendment refers to a period of five years, but paragraph 4 of suggested new schedule 4A clearly states: 
''The report made under section 34 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2003 must include a report as to the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes.''
 In other words, these orders, like many other provisions, must be reviewed annually, and I do not understand why we would want to change from annual to quinquennial reviews. I should have thought that the Committee would be entirely pleased and satisfied with annual reviews, and would not want to extend the period by a further four years.

David Wilshire: It seems to me that the distinction the Minister is drawing is erroneous in itself. He referred to an annual report, but the amendment refers to revising a local development order. Those strike me as very different things, even if that is not how it seems to the Minister.

Tony McNulty: The clause provides that the annual report must state
''the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes.''
 Whether an order is revised, devised or anything else, it needs to be reviewed annually. We shall require local planning authorities to report annually to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales on the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes. Given that we have provided for an annual review of an original or revised decision—the amendment is slightly confusing on that point—a quinquennial review is unnecessary and the amendment should be withdrawn.

Sydney Chapman: I apologise for intervening again, but as I understand clause 34, the annual report will monitor the progress of the local development plan, whereas we are suggesting that the whole document should be reviewed so that changes can be made if necessary. Some of those might be significant and bring about a change in direction after five years. Clause 34 is entitled ''Annual monitoring report''. There is a world of difference between monitoring and making revisions.

Tony McNulty: With the greatest respect, clause 34 refers to an annual report, and paragraph 4(1) of proposed new schedule 4A clearly states that the report
''must include a report as to the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes.''
 Whether that is the original LDO or a revised LDO, the local development order needs to be reviewed annually to see whether it is achieving what it set out to achieve. Given that provision has already been made for an annual review, I see no reason for a separate five-year review of local development orders. The Bill proposes five for the price of one—five reviews of any revisions, modifications or original submissions of LDOs—but hon. Members seem to be arguing that they want not five reviews every five years but one review every five years. I agree that there should be an annual review, but I do not understand why hon. Members think review should take place every five years, rather than annually.

David Wilshire: I am afraid that the Minister does not persuade me at all.

Tony McNulty: Of course not.

David Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would have noticed that once or twice today I have said that I have been persuaded by what he has said. On this occasion, however, I think that he is wrong, and in due course I shall invite my colleagues to support me in pressing the matter to a vote.
 The Minister referred to clause 34, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, is about an annual monitoring report. I am delighted by that. Once a year a report will be produced to say how things are going. It is possible that the report will say that things are not going very well. Paragraph 4(1) of proposed new schedule 4A states that the report will cover 
''the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes.''
 I readily accept that the report might say that the plan is failing. Both the clause and the proposed new schedule imply that something might need to be done, but neither state what might be done. 
 As it stands, using his jackboot powers, the Secretary of State may order the authority to act on the annual report by carrying out a revision. However, paragraph 2(1) of proposed new schedule 4A refers to something entirely different. It states: 
''The local planning authority may at any time prepare a revision of a local development order.''
 There is a world of difference between a monitoring report, or an annual report on progress, and 
''a revision of a local development order'',
 which may be prepared at any time. That is not monitoring or a review but an actual statement of what must be done. 
 If, as the Minister says, paragraph 4(1) provides for the annual preparation of a revision of a local development order, why do we have the provision in paragraph 2(1)? He argues that we do not need to set time limits because a report is provided for once a 
 year. If he is right, there is no need for the provision in proposed new schedule 4A, but there is a need for my amendment. Therefore, I am not persuaded by his argument. 
 At present, if something goes wrong—if the annual reports indicate a failure of the plan, the strategy or something else—the only power available is for the Secretary of State to step in and order a revision. The amendment would make it automatic that instead of an annual report, a revision would be prepared once every five years, even if nothing had happened in the meantime.

Tony McNulty: I am keen to find out where amendment No. 358 provides for what the hon. Gentleman has just described. It does not mention revision or any action that is to follow on after the completion of a review at a time
''not later than five years''
 afterwards. I am perplexed. Where does the amendment mention the action to which he has just referred?

David Wilshire: The action follows from the words:
''The local planning authority may at any time prepare a revision''.
 The preparation of the revision is provided for, and the amendment would mean that that had to be done within five years rather than simply ''at any time'', as the schedule says. 
 If the Minister does not understand the amendment, I am not surprised that he does not agree with it. However, if he were to reflect on it, he would find that I am actually being sensible and that there is a difference between the preparation of a revision and the publication of an annual report. If he is not prepared to agree with me, I shall invite the Committee to vote on the matter. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Paragraph 1(2) states:
''Regulations under this paragraph may include provision as to—''
 and then lists five items. I make my perennial request to the Minister as to whether at some convenient stage—I hope that it will be before Report—we might see a draft copy of the regulations. If the Secretary of State is to have 23 powers in the Bill, of which this is 
 one, it is incumbent on the Minister to provide the Committee and Parliament with a copy of the draft regulations.

Sydney Chapman: I hope that I shall not be out of order in raising this point on schedule 1 stand part. If the legislation gets on to the statute book, it will make fundamental changes to our town and country planning laws and regulations. Schedule 4 will make amendments to at least a dozen other Acts of Parliament. I have a thought for the Minister, although it is not a question for him to answer now. When this measure is on the statute book, it might be worth while introducing a consolidation Bill, perhaps next year, to incorporate this measure into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the principal Act now being amended.
 I put that forward as a constructive suggestion. I know that at the moment, schedule 1 introduces a new schedule 4A to that principal Act. In time, however, that could perhaps become schedule 5, with the other schedules renumbered. A consolidation Bill following the enactment of this measure would bring greater simplicity to, and understanding of, our town and country planning legislation.

Tony McNulty: I concede the logic of that point. I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman could have a word with the usual channels on our side and we could be given the scope to introduce an omnibus consolidation town and country planning Bill, containing all the measures that we want to introduce on compulsory purchase as well. I can see the legislative logic of that—although I should add when I say that I am wearing my non-ministerial, humble MP's hat.
 My perennial response to the hon. Member for Cotswold is that I will endeavour to do my best. I take his point. Finally, I cannot believe that amendment No. 358, moved by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, is really meant to say: 
''or the previous decision of it''.
 I should be grateful if, after the sitting, he can tell me whether he meant it to say ''revision'' rather than ''decision''. That was part of the reason for my confusion about the amendment. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 40 - Statement of development principles

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in
clause 40, page 23, line 39, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 96, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 3, leave out 
 'so far as material to the request'.
 No. 97, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 3, at end insert— 
 '( ) whether sufficient information has been provided by the applicant to enable a decision to be made;'.
 No. 98, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 4, at end insert— 
 ', including the possible requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed development.'.

Matthew Green: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Can you tell us whether you are minded to allow a clause stand part debate? I am slightly worried about that, given the number of amendments, all of which have been tabled by Conservative Members. I tabled an amendment to remove the whole clause. Will there be an opportunity to discuss the whole clause, or should I seek to do so under one of the amendments?

Peter Pike: I hope that all subjects can be covered, as a large range of amendments have been selected for debate. I cannot give an answer at this stage, because it will all depend on the Committee, on the length of time that it spends on the amendments and on how my co-Chairman or I feel that the debates have gone. I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants me to be helpful, but there are a lot of amendments and I hope that most of the issues can be covered in the debates on them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The clause introduces the entirely new concept of the statement of development principles. I assume that that will gradually replace outline planning permission, which will then be phased out. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that as we debate the clause. The clause is very important and we have had many representations about it. I do not think that the Government have thought it through thoroughly. The number of amendments tabled shows that there are many matters to be considered. I shall not get into the detail of the clause yet but shall—until you rule me out of order, Mr. Pike—deal specifically with the amendment.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne drew up amendment No. 95. On reading the Bill, I am slightly puzzled by it because subsection (1) of new section 61D of the 1990 Act, to which it applies, says: 
''A local planning authority must issue a statement of development principles in relation to a proposed development in their area if they are requested to do so by any person.''
 I think that that is perfectly reasonable, and I certainly will not urge my hon. Friends to press amendment No. 95 to a vote. In Committees such as this, one should be frank. When one is wrong, it is best to say so. 
 Amendment No. 96 deals with subsection (2). That says: 
''In considering a request under this section the authority must have regard to—
(a) the development plan so far as material to the request''.
 I have read and reread that and I am not sure what it means. The subsection would be much better if it read, ''In considering a request under this section the authority must have regard to any material considerations.'' Would that not be much simpler and clearer, and give applicants complete clarity as to what to expect from the local authority? While I accept 
 that amendment No. 96 does not entirely achieve that result, that is the result that we should be seeking. 
 Through amendment No. 97, we seek to ensure that an applicant provides sufficient information to enable a decision to be made. Of course a local authority is entitled to expect sufficient information. I would contend that if it were not provided, the authority would not slow in asking for it, so although it would aid clarity, the amendment may not be necessary. Similarly, amendment No. 98 requires the inclusion of a possible requirement for an environmental impact assessment. For some larger developments, that is entirely reasonable. However, the amendment is primarily designed to probe the Government's thinking. It would be unreasonable to require an environmental impact assessment for every development applied for under the statement of development principles. 
 I fear that we are about to introduce yet another acronym—SODP. We must be very careful, or we shall soon have SOD, which would be unfortunate; we must be clear what the clause is about. Amendment No. 96 is helpful; the others are merely probing amendments, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Matthew Green: I am slightly confused. I thought that the amendments did tie together, and that there was a good reason for using ''may'' instead of ''must'' in those circumstances. The amendments would ensure that local authorities had the right to decline to give a decision on the statement of development principles if insufficient evidence were provided by an applicant, and would also allow them to consider a statement of development principles in the light of the legal requirement for a possible environmental impact assessment. The hon. Member for Spelthorne must have had reasons for tabling the amendments. Some of them might have been tabled some weeks ago and in the intervening time he might have forgotten why he did it, but I think that they are sensible and I was hoping to hear more about them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Make the case, then.

Paul Beresford: I was surprised to hear the opening statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, and to find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Ludlow more than I would normally tend to do. I shall be tempted to support the Liberal Democrats' amendment to delete the clause, which seems to me to be one of those ''care in the community'' clauses. It exists to help people who have nothing better to do than plague local planning authorities. Under the provision, the LPA must issue a statement of development principles relating to development in the area
''if they are requested to do so by any person''.
 I have mentioned that before. 
 I am sure that from his past experience, to which he keeps referring, the Minister will recall that there are individuals who have nothing better to do than plague the local authority, either because they wish to plague the authority itself, or because they wish to stop some form of development. The clause will enable such 
 individuals to thwart the normal procedures that one would expect. 
 New section 61D(6) would block any outline application for a similar development for three years—even an application from the owner of the site, who might not have been involved in the original request. That would lead to an unreasonable increase in workload for the LPA. Thinking of some of the individuals plaguing local authorities whom I have met around the country, I realise that that is absolutely guaranteed—unless authorities have some means of turning out a standard three-line response to the standard three-line letter from individuals requesting a statement of principles. 
 The provision is also a recipe for various interest groups to frustrate viable development. If we must have the clause, the provision should be discretionary for the local planning authority.

Sydney Chapman: In discussing the amendments, it is difficult to disentangle them from the next two groups. For example, amendment No. 95 refers to new section 61D(1), and one of the next group of amendments would add something to that instead of changing a word in it. Amendment No. 309, which is in a further group of amendments, would add other elements. Normally we argue that instead of using the word ''may'' in the Bill, we should use ''must''. The amendment is a reverse example. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold: in this case, ''may'' is a more appropriate word than ''must''. New section 61D(2) would be changed by amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 98. Amendment No. 96 would remove the unnecessary phrase:
''so far as material to the request''.
 I want to make an over-arching comment. We are dealing with a clause that concerns the statement of development principles, and it is the belief of many people in the construction and development world that it will remove outline planning applications and approval. I hope that I am not going beyond the scope of the amendments in saying that. There is at least one good thing about outline planning permissions: they give certainty to the developer, builder, or whoever it may be. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be taken. If a developer does not know that he definitely has planning permission he could spend a lot of money and then find that both his time and money had been wasted if the development was not subsequently approved. 
 The Minister has said on the record that the purpose of clause 40 was not to abolish outline planning applications—it might be called the ''SOD'' clause; there is sod's law in the world and Syd's law in Parliament. If the Minister can give an assurance about the Government's intention for the future of outline planning permissions, I, for one, would be grateful.

David Wilshire: I rise with some trepidation, because I must distance myself from what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said about amendment No. 95. I have to do that, because the hon. Member for
 Ludlow suggested that my hon. Friend might have tabled it so long ago that he had forgotten why he did it. My hon. Friend did not table it a long time ago, because I tabled it. My hon. Friend is not a mind reader, and any blame must lie with me, not with my hon. Friend.
 I recall clearly why I tabled the amendment. I did so for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. I see the provision as an interferer's charter. It is a wonderful opportunity for those in the knee-jerk, against everything brigade with their heads in a bucket of sand, who want to object to anything that anyone else wants to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, it will be incredibly difficult to pick our way through the string of amendments without having the same debate several times—although I know that you will stop us, Mr. Pike, if we fall into that trap. Each group of amendments seeks a way to achieve the aim behind using the word ''may'' rather than the word ''must''. If the Minister would accept ''may'' rather than ''must'' we could make progress, because I suspect that many of the remaining amendments would be unnecessary. 
 I have no difficulty accepting the Government's principle that there should be an opportunity for people who are genuinely concerned and have a legitimate reason for being concerned to seek more information and that the planning process should be delayed for a moment or two to allow that.

Matthew Green: I am now even more confused about Conservative Members' intentions in tabling this group of amendments. They hang together and would give local authorities the ability to consider a statement of development principle in the light of a legal requirement for the possible environmental impact assessment in amendment No. 98. I thought that that was a useful way of allowing them to decline to give a decision and then to take into account the environmental impact assessment. I am now baffled because this group of amendments seems to cover something else.

David Wilshire: No, I am talking only about amendment No. 95. The other amendments may hang together and may make sense with or without amendment No. 95, but I am focusing on amendment No. 95. What I see in that amendment, I see in all the other amendments. The amendment would provide a safeguard against gratuitous attempts to stop development for reasons that are not in the best interests of the majority of the people in the area. It is as simple as that. It would allow the local planning authority discretion to say, ''We understand. You have made your request and we have listened to your reasons, but we do not think that we should deal with that.'' If that is not acceptable to the Government, the remaining amendments seek alternative ways of doing that.
 I shall not delay the Committee by speaking to amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 98. The hon. Member for Ludlow said that he likes them and I am delighted, but I make no apology for the fact that I am trying to stop 
 some harm that will arise from what is a good idea in principle.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is right to the extent that the clause is fairly complicated and many of the amendments hang together, so this could become a bitty debate.
 We were as clear as we could be in the document ''Sustainable Communities—Delivering through Planning'', which was issued on 18 July with the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that we would take forward the proposal to introduce a certificate—the statement of development principles—which might eventually replace outline planning permission. That permission will be removed only when the statement of development principles has been proven to work. We shall come later to what might be a degree of confusion about subsection (6) of proposed new section 61D to the 1990 Act. 
 In the context of the amendments before us, I fully accept what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about outline planning permission, the certainty that that affords developers and the way in which it can be utilised in the broader market for economic reasons above and beyond the planning process. I have heard those arguments and take them on board. If—and I accept this characterisation too—the prevailing view in the big, bad world is that the certificate will be introduced and outline planning permission will be thrown out of the window after Royal Assent, I am happy to disabuse people of those views in the context of the 18 July statement.

Sydney Chapman: That is very helpful.

Tony McNulty: Amendment No. 95 would allow a planning authority to decide whether to issue a statement. I cannot agree with that. It would be similar to letting an authority decide whether it should determine an application for planning permission. The consistency brought about by ''must'' rather than ''may'' is appropriate. This is not an appropriate area for that degree of discretion. A request for a statement of development principles is a request for the local planning authority's view on whether a particular development could be acceptable. I see no reason why the LPA should not be obliged to form and state its view on that question.

David Wright: Does the Minister agree that this provision is really about changing the culture of planning departments and ensuring that they talk to applicants more than they do now? One of the big problems in this country is that many planning authorities only give permission at the end of the process. They do not talk to developers at all and they do not communicate the principles of development in their areas. It is extremely expensive for applicants to make applications and hear nothing until the planning committee sits and determines that application. This measure is about changing that culture.

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His observation goes to the heart of the matter. As and when the statement of development principles is up and running and we are in a position to do away with outline planning permission, I am sure that all the fears to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet
 rightly alluded, and which I have heard myself, will be dissipated. We are trying to bring a little sunlight and transparency to the good many informal and formal pre-application conversations that take place.

Paul Beresford: I hear what the Minister says, but the difficulty is that the provision relates to ''any person.'' The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) talked about developers, which is understandable, but there are Machiavellian individuals out there who would qualify as ''any person'' but who might not have any intention of developing the site. They might not even own the site or have any prospect of owning it.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know that ownership of a site is not currently a prerequisite for putting in an application.

Paul Beresford: I am aware of that. That is why I said it.

Tony McNulty: I will return to the hon. Gentleman's point shortly.
 Clause 40 allows the LPA to disagree with the principle of all or part of the proposed development outlined in a request for a statement. The aim is not to thrash out a statement of development principles to the point of consensus between the individual and the authority, so I fail to see any justification for allowing the LPA to decline to issue a statement of development principles. I do not see why that should be discretionary in any way, shape or form. 
 I do not entirely understand the purpose of amendment No. 96. The suggestion seems to be that the LPA should have regard to something that is not material to the request. We have here an example of where material considerations specific to the potential decision on an application further down the line are appropriate. It would be inappropriate to throw in anything erroneous. Hon. Members might like to bear in mind that the wording of the clause at this point echoes that relating to the determination of an application for planning permission under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 
 Amendment No. 97 requires the LPA, in considering a request for a statement of development principles, to consider whether the applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the authority to make a decision on the request. By inference, the amendment suggests, but does not state, that a statement should not be issued if the applicant has provided insufficient information. We intend to specify in a development order made under the powers in proposed new section 61D(8) of the 1990 Act that someone requesting a statement will need to provide, as a minimum, a site location plan and a description of the proposed development. If they wish to provide more information, such as detailed drawings, they will be able to do so, but we do not intend to require more. 
 The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet pointed out the interlocking or overlapping nature of the amendment, which is a germane point. We will discuss vexatious or capricious applications, which are made by people whom the hon. Member for Mole Valley has described. Every MP in the Room could 
 name 10 such people because that is a non-partisan, broad experience to which we are all used. 
 The General Permitted Development Order puts an onus on people to put in a request for a statement of development principles items such as a site location plan and a description of the proposed development. If the authority agrees with the statement of development principles, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned earlier, the way in which subsection (6) of new section 61D is drafted would mean that it was impossible to obtain outline planning permission. The confluence of the outline planning permission system and the SODP—statement of development principles—system could therefore be influenced by vexatious applications. People who do not want planning applications could stack up a bunch of statements of development principles to prevent bona fide developers seeking outline planning permission on the same site. I want to return to that point when we come to amendments Nos. 309 and 310. That is another little bit of generosity on my part, as it is not germane to amendments Nos. 95, 96 or 97. 
 Returning to the General Permitted Development Order, an authority will need to consider the proposal only in respect of the amount of information provided. It is therefore not appropriate to include an amendment that says, ''Are you sure that you have got all the information that you want?'' The LPA can proceed only on the basis of the information provided. If an application comes in with a little stick drawing, a site plan and the word ''housing'', that is the context in which the statement of development principles has to be determined. 
 I know that it is difficult to follow the argument because we are jumping around between the amendments, but I suggest that amendment No. 95 is inappropriate. I do not like the discretion that it would add to the process. Either the SODP system is an appropriate system that may or may not subsequently take over from outline planning permission, or it is not. If it is appropriate, it is appropriate for all planning authorities and not simply those that choose to use it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister must answer my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley's point. If we are not careful, the procedure could open up a frustraters' charter in the planning system. Rows of people could pay the application fee, which presumably will apply to the SODP, although that is not clear in the Bill, and frustrate a development. The Minister says that he will bring forward a General Permitted Development Order, but we will use future amendments to probe what interest one must have before one can make an SODP application. Under the clause, somebody will be able to frustrate a development by asking for an SODP, which will mean that the owner cannot seek outline planning permission. The clause runs counter to the European convention on human rights, which states that somebody has the right to do what they wish with their land. I should like to hear how the Minister will stop frustration in the planning system.

Tony McNulty: I must apologise to the Committee for troubling it with that intervention, which repeated what I just said. I know that it is late, but I clearly stated that all that the hon. Member for Mole Valley has said is true. If subsection (6) prevails, a statement of development principles on a site precludes outline planning permission. I was going to be generous on amendments Nos. 309 and 310 because, as subsection (6) stands, vexatious applications could stymie the entire process, which is not our intent. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we get to amendments Nos. 309 and 310.

Matthew Green: I hoped that the Minister would touch on amendment No. 98, because I should like to know how environmental impact assessments could be requested for the purposes of formulating statements of development principles and before they are put in place.

Tony McNulty: Given the hour and the fact that we are discussing amendment No. 95, I shall write to hon. Members about environmental impact assessments. It is a fair point, which sits between the statement of development principles and outline planning permissions. However, given that the Committee will resume later, with the indulgence of hon. Members, I shall concentrate on the lead amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With great respect to the Minister, the frustration of outline planning permission is not the sole issue. The Bill makes it clear, in new section 61D(5), that a person may not apply for another SODP in respect of the same piece of land within two years. If anyone can come along and apply for an SODP, that will frustrate planning permission for that piece of land. The Minister still has not satisfactorily explained how his development order would prevent that from happening.
Mr. McNulty rose—

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call the Minister, I am minded to suspend the sitting for half an hour once we have finished discussing the amendment. I just thought that it might focus people's minds if I let the Committee know that now.

Tony McNulty: It has focused mine. I have finished.

Peter Pike: Mr. Clifton-Brown, do you want to say anything else?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister said that he would reply to my question about outline planning permission, but he has not told the Committee how people will be prevented from making vexatious, spurious or capricious applications for SODPs. I am minded to press the amendment to a vote. I was not especially in favour of amendment No. 95, because it seems to me that anyone who has a genuine interest in land and who asks for an SODP should have it granted to them, but if we are to allow all and sundry to apply for SODPs, without there being any proper control, amendment No. 95 has absolute validity. To focus people's minds, I ask my colleagues to vote in favour of the amendment.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

Peter Pike: I am now suspending the Committee.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Peter Pike: Order. In response to Mr. Green's question about clause stand part, I have given further thought to the progress that we have made today and to what we must cover by the time the next knife falls, and I am minded not to have a clause stand part debate. I hope that that is helpful.

Matthew Green: Might you therefore allow me a little latitude on one set of amendments, Mr. Pike? I could choose the most suitable set. The amendments on offer do not really cover all the issues and I may have to stretch your patience a little.

Peter Pike: I am fairly reasonable, as long as the hon. Gentleman does not stretch my patience too far. He asked for my guidance and I am trying to be helpful.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Will you give the Committee some guidance? We are now into uncharted waters. I was thinking during the break that 3 o'clock in the morning is my record when serving on Standing Committees. I hope that we do not break that record, but if we do go on, could you tell us when you would next be minded to have a break?

Peter Pike: I have served on several Committees that sat all through the night and even until lunchtime the next day. I am minded, if necessary, to adjourn for a meal break at about 8 pm. I told the Committee my thoughts on the matter at our first sitting; 8 o'clock would be an appropriate time for dinner if the need should arise.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 407, in
clause 40, page 23, line 41, leave out 'any person' and insert 
 '50 people who live in the local planning authority's area and who (in the opinion of the authority) will be affected by the proposed development.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 308, in 
clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end insert 
 'interested in the land on which the development is proposed'.
 Amendment No. 369, in 
clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end add 
 'with a legitimate interest in development in the authority's area'.
 Amendment No. 311, in 
clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any request under subsection (1), any person (other than the person making the request) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the request relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the request in such manner as may be required by the order.'.
 Amendment No. 312, in 
clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), a person making a request under subsection (1) shall serve a notice stating that the request has been made on every owner and occupier of any land to which the request relates. 
 (1B) If, after reasonable inquiry has been made, the local planning authority are satisfied that it is not practicable to ascertain the name or address of an owner or occupier of any land to which the application relates, the local planning authority may direct that the notice required to be served on him by subsection (1A) may be served by addressing it to him by the description ''owner'' or ''occupier'' of the land (describing it) and by affixing it to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a welcome tea break. We have all come back refreshed, renewed and invigorated and we shall pursue the Minister with all possible vigour.
 I deliberately did not join in the debate on outline planning permission under the previous group of amendments, because it will be the subject of a subsequent group headed by amendment No. 309. I was not too fussed until I heard what my hon. Friends had to say about the substitution of ''may'' with ''must'', because I was much more concerned about who could apply for a statement of development principles. That is precisely what the present group of amendments seeks to probe and tease out of the Minister. Amendment No. 407 was tabled with precisely that in mind. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley made a pertinent point. If we are not careful, the procedure introduced under the SODP could be a frustrators' charter. That is particularly relevant when one considers that later clauses say that a similar application may not be made for another two years. Someone who had no interest in the land could apply for a statement of development principles, but the poor landowner or others who had an interest in it would not be able to apply for a similar statement. We are particularly interested in teasing out who can make such applications.

Tony McNulty: I fear that the hon. Gentleman misreads subsection (5) of proposed new section 61D. It states:
''a local planning authority may decline to issue a statement''.
 Nowhere does it say that no further applications can be made for two years. The SODP can be applied for within two years, but the LPA can decline to consider it should it relate to a similar development that was previously disagreed during the previous two years. The Bill does not say that there should no subsequent SOPD for two years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention. It is a question of how local authorities apply that power. If they apply it sensibly, there will be no problem. We need to tease out from the Minister who can apply. In amendment No. 407, we suggest that it should be 50 people. I do not know whether that is the right number; it needs to be more than one, but perhaps fewer than 50. We need to discuss the matter.
 Amendment No. 308 gets to the heart of the issue. It states that only people with a legitimate interest in development in the land in question may get a SODP. That is entirely reasonable. It is surely wrong that someone else, without consent or discussion with those who have an interest in the land, can get a statement of development principles and frustrate the possible wishes of the landowner. 
 Amendment No. 369 seeks to discover whether anyone can apply, whether or not they live in the local planning authority's area. Again, we must be careful. The Minister said that he will make a development order, but we are probing what will be in it. It is legitimate to ask whether people have to live within the authority's area. 
 I turn to amendments Nos. 311 and 312. Amendment No. 311 would enshrine in the new section the requirement that a person with an interest in land—and, indeed, an agricultural tenant—should be notified of a statement of development principles made with respect to that land. It is highly possible that someone who owned land would have no idea that someone else had applied for a statement of development principles with respect to it. It is wholly reasonable that the owner or tenant should be notified. 
 Amendment No. 312 would strengthen the provision that the owner should be notified. Proposed subsection (1B) would provide a default power to be used when the owner could not be identified after reasonable inquiries had been made at, for example, the Land Registry. A notice could under that power be affixed to some prominent object on the land. That is reasonable. At one time neighbours did not have to be notified about an ordinary planning application, but we established guidance for local authorities that they should notify neighbours. I think that the relevant provision is probably in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That was something wholly reasonable, and it bears some relation to the procedure I envisage happening under the amendments.

Matthew Green: There are three amendments in the group—Nos. 407, 369 and 308—that I cannot support. Amendment No. 369, for example, would give rise to considerable ambiguity about who would decide who had ''a legitimate interest''. The provision under amendment No. 407 for the local development authority to decide which people should have a right to be concerned is also too ambiguous. However, I strongly support amendments Nos. 311 and 312.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I cannot see that amendment No. 369 is in any way ambiguous, because it would narrow down the definition of who could legitimately
 apply for a statement of development principles. The drafting of the clause seems to leave matters very wide, unless the Minister can assure us that the local development order will narrow things down. Anyone from anywhere in the country could apply for a statement of development principles on land outside their area.

Matthew Green: The ambiguity is not in the intention, but in who would decide who had ''a legitimate interest''. I suspect that we should have to wait for test cases in the courts.
 I can give strong support to amendments Nos. 311 and 312. It is only right that the owner and tenant of land about which someone seeks a statement of development principles should be notified that that is happening. It would be highly unfair if they were not. Likewise, the idea that a notice should be put on an object on the land makes great sense. We all want the planning system to be as widely understood, and as accessible, as possible. One way to do that is to make people aware when changes at whatever level are likely. 
 We all accept the procedure by which people are made aware of the arrangements for planning permission, but no such procedure, as far as I can see, has been established for statements of development principles. Perhaps the Minister will explain that guidance will deal with the adherence to suitable procedures. However, I am glad that the two amendments have been tabled, because they highlight a potential lack in the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: The amendments deal with a difficulty; finding the right word or the right phrase for our intention, whether we agree with it or not. Benjamin Franklin said at the signing of the American declaration of independence:
''We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall hang separately.''
 I do not know whether the amendments hang together or separately, but they are trying to achieve something that I support. We all seek to improve the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 308 would add the following to clause 40(1): 
''interested in the land on which the development is proposed''.
 What do we mean by ''interested''?

Tony McNulty: Who knows?

Sydney Chapman: We could say sincerely that we are interested in every acre in our constituencies. Perhaps we mean financial interest, although not necessarily only financial interest. The owner of the land affected should be included, as should the tenants of any property that would be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and I agree that the agricultural tenant—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is, of course, possible to make amendments more complicated; but to clarify, I envisage ''interested'' to have the same meaning as in the Law of Property Act 1925, ''a legal interest in land''.

Sydney Chapman: That is most helpful to me, a non-lawyer. I am careful not to disagree with my hon. Friend.
 There could be circumstances in which somebody does not have a legal interest in the land but has a genuine interest of another sort. I am not trying to deal in conundrums; I merely make the point. There is a challenge to us to find the right form of words.

Matthew Green: One of the reasons that I struggle to support amendment No. 308 is that ''interested'' could be taken to mean neighbours who might suffer financial loss as a result of a proposed development. However, it could be more widely interpreted than that. That is my concern with it, although it raises an interesting point.

Sydney Chapman: I agree entirely: the list is not exhaustive. It will be difficult to find the right wording, but we should try. Of course we want to stop the frivolous and the Nosy Parker. Consider amendment No. 407, which would amend clause 40 by removing ''any person'' in subsection (1) of new section 61D and inserting
''50 people who live in the local planning authority's area and who (in the opinion of the authority) will be affected by the proposed development.''.
 In this day and age, the wreckers could almost certainly still muster 50 people. These amendments, complex though they are, are probing amendments. I ask the Minister not to dismiss them out of hand because this is a very important point. We all share an aspiration: we want this measure to be transparent and we want people to know where they stand if we do change the law. The authorities, whether the local planning authorities, the Secretary of State or the regional planning boards, have responsibilities as well as privileges. We want to ensure that we get this right for the sake of those who will be affected by the Bill.

David Wilshire: My main reason for contributing is to help the hon. Member for Ludlow. He said that he could not support amendments Nos. 407, 308 and 369. However, he went on to support amendments Nos. 311 and 312. There is a simple explanation, which he has been too charitable to mention: I wrote the first three amendments, and people far more sensible than I wrote the two that he supports.
 Let me try to persuade the hon. Gentleman of the sense of the first three amendments. We said in a previous debate that this could easily become a wrecker's charter. If we are not careful, an oddball will be able to run amok through the planning system. 
 I accept that a balance must be struck between giving an oddball the chance to wreck everything and giving opportunities to legitimate local interests. We should not be considering a minority of one here; it should be a larger minority whose rights should be respected. However, I plucked the figure 50 out of the air. I think that all of us in the Committee have tried to drum up signatures for petitions in our time, and we know that a moment arrives at which one has a critical mass that genuinely reflects widespread concern, rather than just the views of a few people.

Matthew Green: I might have the most rural constituency of any Committee member. It is the
 second largest constituency in England, but has only 63,000 electors. The parish in which my parents live is 96 sq km and has 92 inhabitants. Getting together 50 people to request a statement of development principle would be extremely difficult in certain parts of my constituency.

David Wilshire: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman reminds me of when I was leader of the council in part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). If I remember rightly, one parish had an electorate of 23 people. The point raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow is well made and there are clearly other ways of achieving the aim, such as using a certain percentage of an area's total population. What is important is the principle. We do not want minorities of one to be able to be wreckers. We want a formula that gives a reasonable number of people with a legitimate concern the opportunity to express their concern and to take that forward.
 To go down the track of saying that more than one person is needed to request a statement raises the problem of the would-be applicant, who will almost always be one person or a single entity. If we are to up the number of people needed, there must be some provision for that person. Amendment No. 369 leads us to the question of a ''legitimate interest'' in land, the definition that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and I came up with when I was thinking the matter through. I realise that we could use many other definitions but this is my attempt to say that the would-be applicant, owner or tenant, as one person, could make a request as an individual. Just as the measure could end up being a wrecker's charter, it could similarly be a helpful measure for someone trying to explore development possibilities for their property. I have suggested the narrow definition ''legitimate interest'' in land, purely to allow one person, in certain circumstances, to request a statement. 
 To use the phrase a ''legitimate interest'' in the ''authority's area'' might not be an especially neat legal way of addressing a further point of concern. I have been quite a long time getting round to runways this afternoon, but people such as members of Friends of the Earth are, as a matter of principle, implacably opposed to runways, irrespective of the effects that they might have on the travelling public and the general population. They are entitled to that view, but a few people based in headquarters somewhere, who decide to try to make life as difficult as possible irrespective of where they are based, could pepper planning authorities throughout the country with requests. The focus should be on the local community. That is my understanding of what the Government want—community involvement, not a national or international pressure group campaigning to get its way. Otherwise, one can only begin to imagine what would happen if we returned to contemplating further nuclear electricity generators. We might have the world's pressure groups taking up the opportunity afforded in the clause. It does not even say that the person involved has to be a British subject, which would be another approach to the matter. 
 Amendments Nos. 407, 369 and 308 seek to get rid of the wrecking element, while keeping to what the Government are trying to achieve in principle. They are as simple as that. Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 are put in far better language and I kick myself for not thinking of them when I was contemplating the clause. 
 Has my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold turned his mind to the status under the clause of a person with an option to purchase? He has rightly specified the owner and the tenant but are there other people who should be informed, such as a person with an option to purchase?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Someone with an option to purchase would have a land charge. I envisage that anyone who had a legitimate interest in the land through a land charge or a mortgage, for example, or a trustee, would also automatically be notified.

David Wilshire: I am most grateful for that comment. The problem could be solved in that way. Nevertheless, whatever the wording, the principles are important. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Tony McNulty: I find myself broadly in agreement with the hon. Member for Ludlow. The first three amendments are completely erroneous, and the notion that the Bill is a wrecker's charter is abject nonsense. The principles behind establishing the statement of development principles are exactly those that have prevailed, by and large, since the 1947 Act, which referred clearly to ''any person'', in addition to successor bodies.
 We could make the Bill even more obscure by making barriers to application of nationality or, as is now suggested, ''legitimate interest'', which is ill-defined if defined at all. The amendments are a wrecker's charter. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said about amendment No. 407, the local planning authority would choose 50 people who it deemed appropriate in that they had a legitimate interest. That is the diktat and jackboot—it does not appear anywhere in the Bill. The amendments are without foundation and have at their heart a fundamental misunderstanding of what the clause is trying to do. 
 However, I can find more generous words for amendments Nos. 311 and 312. Proposed new section 61D(8) allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to make provision for a procedure to be followed by a person requesting the issue of a statement of development principles. We intend to use the power to introduce in secondary legislation a requirement to notify owners and tenants. The exact provisions for requests for statements of development principles will be similar to those that apply for applications for planning permission. 
 I sympathise with the intent of amendments Nos. 311 and 312. I agree that owners and tenants should be informed in the same way that they are informed about applications for planning permission. However, we see no need for such provisions to be placed in primary legislation, given that they follow from proposed new section 61D(8). 
 At the risk of being slightly rude, the first three amendments baffle me somewhat. The engagement between the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Ludlow was interesting but, in my humble opinion—this is not in any way an attempt to impugn the Chair—it bore no relation to the statement of development principles or anything else that is covered in clause 40. 
 Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 deal with legitimate concerns and will be covered by proposed new section 61D(8). The other three amendments would add nothing to the efficacy of the new system or to developing it in any way, shape or form that is better than what is provided for in the Bill. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not surprised that the Minister resists amendments Nos. 407, 369 and 308. I do not regret tabling them, because they led to a useful probing exercise. However, the Government have to do more work on the matter. If we are not careful, the planning authority will face a huge workload because of spurious claims for statements of development principles. I am not sure that the Government have thought that through.
 However, the Minister was sympathetic to amendments Nos. 311 and 312, so they must be right. They received support from both sides of the Committee. We have received sympathetic consideration for two out of five amendments—40 per cent. It is not quite but nearly half a loaf. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 309, in
clause 40, page 23, line 41, at end insert—
'(1A) No request may be made in respect of any land which is the subject of an application for outline planning permission which has not been finally determined.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 310, in
clause 40, page 24, leave out lines 21 to 23.
 Amendment No. 219, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 22, leave out from '92)' to end of line 23 and insert
'can be applied for at any time whilst the development plans remain valid'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We move now to the heart of the clause, which deals with provisions for outline planning permission. The subject is extremely complicated but extremely important, so we shall need to spend some time on it.
 Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 provides the mechanism by which an LPA might grant outline planning permission. Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 addresses the time limits within which applications for reserve matters under outline planning permissions must be submitted and outline planning permission must be implemented. 
 It is worth stating the value of outline planning permissions. They provide a mechanism by which an individual or a developer can test the willingness of a local authority to give full planning permission against the general principles of compatibility with the plan and other matters. Once somebody has obtained outline planning permission, albeit with reservations and time scales, he has a bankable permission on the basis of which he can seek funding. That is important in the case of developments such as King's Cross, the east Thames corridor and Battersea power station. Such large developments require a great deal of time and a considerable number of people have to be involved in the funding, if nothing else. According to the outside bodies that we have talked to, financial institutions will not consider a statement of development principles in anything like the same bankable manner as an outline planning permission. The developer of any sizeable development will go for an outline planning permission rather than for an SODP. 
 If the Government start to phase out outline planning permission, it is difficult to see how we shall be able to speed up the planning process for large and highly complex planning applications. In practice, people will probably go for full planning permission, and many issues will have to be considered in such complex situations. Almost certainly, section 106 matters—such as traffic impact assessment, open spaces or community facilities—will have to be considered and they might be subject to land transfers. One would need to consider PPG3 matters in relation to the amount of affordable housing that has to be provided in a large-scale development. Within such a development, the developer is likely to have to prepare, among other things, a sustainability plan, a traffic impact plan and an environmental impact assessment. It is a complex procedure. It would be detrimental to phase out outline planning permission. I am sure that the Government will not do so, because pressure will be brought to bear by planning developers, house builders and other practitioners in the planning sector. Amendment No. 309 seeks to restrict a person's ability to apply for an SODP where there is already in place an application for outline planning permission. That seems to us to be eminently sensible. 
 Amendment No. 310 seeks to delete subsection (6) of proposed section 61D in clause 40, the key subsection dealing with the following matter: 
''If a statement of development principles is issued outline planning permission (within the meaning of section 92)''—
 meaning section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the principal Act— 
''must not be granted for a similar development before the end of the relevant period.''
 I shall deal first with the technical problems. Subsection (6) refers to the validity of section 92, which gives the time scales for outline planning permission. However, there is a problem, on which the Minister will want to reflect. As I read the Bill—he will no doubt tell me if I am wrong—schedule 3 abolishes section 92. Paragraph 4, on page 63, clearly states: 
''Section 92 (outline planning permission) is omitted.''
 However, it is also repealed by schedule 6, on page 74. If nothing else, we have a drafting problem in subsection (6). Again, however, the Minister will no doubt put me right if I have misunderstood. 
 Amendment No. 219 provides that outline planning permission can be applied for at any time, rather than restricting it to after the two-year period in subsection (5). Why cannot outline planning permission be the next logical stage once someone has gone through the eminently sensible process of getting an SODP? He will presumably have gone through a certain amount of pre-application consultation with the local planning authority to get the SODP. Some of the work will therefore have been done, and he could logically move on to obtain outline planning permission following more consultation. He would then have a bankable document, so he could start to get funding and perhaps attend to many reserve matters. Once he had done that, he could make a full application. That would be a legitimate way in which the Bill could speed up the planning process for complex developments, and the Government may want to consider it. 
 The amendments are important, and we must be circumspect about abolishing outline planning permission. There has been much cogent lobbying by many outside bodies, which have said that it would be a retrograde step to abolish it, and I think that they will make their reservations known to the Government. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend has said most of what I was going to say, and probably much better than I could have done. However, I want to add one point on the importance of outline planning permission. In the case of significant applications—those are the ones that we are talking about—developers can seek funding in the knowledge that the local authority generally accepts the proposals, although the detail will, of course, have to be attended to. That is one good reason for outline planning permission, but we frequently come across at least two others.
 First, the promoter of a development must spend a considerable amount on detailed designs, and it would be absurd if he had to draft them all without the pretty sure knowledge that he would have the planning permission that he sought. 
 Secondly, there is often nothing to stop anybody from submitting a planning application for any piece of land anywhere in the England and Wales, even if he has no interest in it. By that, I mean that he does not own the land or is not a tenant on it. It is pointless to do that, however, unless a person—if he is granted planning permission—can acquire the land. The person who owns the land often will say to a developer, ''I will sell the land to you, but I'm not going to sell it at the agricultural price or the undeveloped price. I want to sell it to you at the full market value.'' 
 Therefore, the developer has the assurance that he can buy the land at the full market price—with 
 planning permission—for which he could not pay the money up front without the outline planning permission. 
 Those are two other extraordinary and important reasons why we must examine carefully any attempt to curtail the right of getting or seeking an outline planning permission, even if the Minister is not minded to abolish outline planning permissions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Committee is benefiting considerably from my hon. Friend's experience. Does he accept that there is a difference between the SODP procedure and that used for outline planning permissions? It is likely that only one SODP per piece of land will be accepted, although that is up to the local authority. However, it is more common with outline planning permissions for more than one application for the same piece of land to be accepted at the same time.

Sydney Chapman: Indeed. In an attempt not to detain the Committee unnecessarily, the two additional reasons that I gave were not exhaustive—there are others.
 As the Minister recognises, we are dealing with an extraordinarily important point, which will significantly affect the ability to develop land.

Matthew Green: These are fairly key amendments that, for the reasons that we have heard, go to the crux of the clause. I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate that the Government will not get rid of outline planning permissions for the moment. We shall come on to that when we consider other provisions in the Bill. Some confusing points may arise.
 I am glad that outline planning permissions are to remain. However, potential conflict will arise between the statements of development principles and outline planning permissions. If there is an area of the Bill that will add the most work to local planning authorities, this is it. As well as outline planning permissions, local planning authorities will now have to consider producing statements of development principles. 
 It is unlikely that extra money will be forthcoming from the Deputy Prime Minister in the Government's allocation to local councils to fund the extra work from the planning authorities. The local council tax payer will bear the burden. The Minister may tell us that the end result will be a price worth paying. However, if SODPs work, outline planning permissions will eventually be abolished, and I am nervous about that. 
 I would have liked a clause stand part debate because I am not convinced that the clause is the way forward. SODPs will lead to extra work in the interim and, in the longer term, there is no certainty that they will replace outline planning permissions, because we must see whether they work. If they do work, and outline planning permissions are removed, they will not necessarily enhance the current position, and local people will have undergone extra cost and payment as a result. While we are in that two-tier position, because I am certain that I have no chance of getting the clause 
 removed, much as I would like to, conflicts will potentially arise between the statements of development principles and outline planning permissions. The hon. Member for Cotswold has done the Committee a favour by bringing forward the amendments. 
 The hon. Member for Cotswold has done the Committee a favour by bringing forward the group of amendments. Although they might not be perfectly worded, they tease out some of the potential problems with a system in which outline planning permissions and statements of development principles exist at the same time. The Minister has already indicated that there might be some excitement on that matter. 
Mr. McNulty indicated dissent.

Matthew Green: Oh dear. We had all stayed behind for that, and we were getting excited. I hope that the Minister can tease out the conflicts between those two systems that will run at the same time, and reassure the Committee that the Government will find a way to define what needs to happen, whether that be through their own amendments, through regulations or otherwise. Planning departments face not only increased work loads—they will have to recruit extra staff to do the SODPs—but the problem of uncertainty that will be created by the two systems running in parallel.

Tony McNulty: I shook my head only because ''excitement'' would be too strong a word.
 As for the entirely appropriate references to section 92, I shall précis the little note that has been going back and forth. It says that section 92, which deals with outline planning permission, is to be repealed, and that that must be included in the Bill to enable outline planning permission to be abolished if SODP is successful. Crucially, however, that will be brought into effect by a commencement order, as detailed in clause 86(1). All the elements alluded to in the daughter document of the 18 July statement that outline planning permission will go if SODPs are successful are in the Bill, hence the rather complex references to section 92. However, those elements rely on a commencement order that will not be made unless and until the SODP is successful. I hope that that elucidates the rather convoluted references to section 92. 
 If I may, I now want to reverse the way in which I deal with the amendments, in complete contradiction to what I said earlier about dealing only with lead amendments.

Paul Beresford: I am not trying to be awkward, but the Minister blithely says, ''If SODPs prove successful.'' Can he say what trial time he anticipates, and how he will judge whether they are successful?

Tony McNulty: Not off the top of my head—although I shall write to the Committee about that matter. There will be a mechanism in place that reviews clearly how the process works, because we are wedded to the end goal that I described if SODPs are
 successful. It is necessary to include little legislative hooks in the Bill to do that.

Paul Beresford: I hope that the Minister will be more helpful. What if the reverse happens? What if, after all that we have been through and all we have imposed on England—but not on Wales—what the Minister describes does not work? Will everything be withdrawn?

Tony McNulty: As I understand it, the provisions would not need to be withdrawn. The commencement order would not be engaged, because the SODPs would not have been successful. It is not for me to speculate on the review of the success or otherwise of the provisions. If SODPs are not successful enough to replace outline planning permission they might be successful in other regards: by shining a light on pre-application discussions, for example. SODPs might not be the appropriate tool to replace outline planning permission, but might none the less have some virtue and deserve to be kept. I simply do not know—I am not a futurologist. I shall get back to the Committee to review and measure the success or otherwise of the measures that we are considering putting in place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the Minister moves off section 92, will he say whether I am correct in thinking that the provision will be omitted both in paragraph 4 of schedule 3 and in schedule 6? I take his point about the commencement order. Is it correct that this has been deleted twice in the Bill? If so, is there not some tidying up that needs to be done?

Tony McNulty: I would need to explore that. There may be specific points at which that is mentioned twice—but if it has been repealed once that should be sufficient. There may well be a step process mirroring the introduction of the SODPs and the commencement order, and I will look into that too. The note that I have been passed by my officials says ''technical drafting''; perhaps that may help.
 The crux is whether the SODPs succeed in replacing outline planning permission. Amendment No. 310 essentially gets rid of new section 61D(6) and formalises the relationship between SODPs and outline planning permission. Outside the Committee there has been much discussion of that matter and the confusion that it may cause. I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments about the bankable value of outline planning permission, above and beyond being merely part of the planning process. That does not put me in the pockets of rapacious developers. 
 If I agree to take back new section 61D(6) and consider anything from deletion to refinement, that means that amendment No. 310 is unnecessary. If that is the case then amendment No. 309 is also unnecessary. Consequently, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is in extremely constructive mode. New section 61D(6) has caused considerable consternation. When people read our proceedings they will be reassured by what he has just said, which is very welcome.
 Does the Minister agree that it would be a useful progression—particularly with a complex 
 application—for a developer to go first for an SODP and, even within the currency of that SODP, to have a mechanism for applying for outline planning permission and subsequently progress to a full application? That useful progression could cut the time that a complex development requires for planning permission to be granted.

Tony McNulty: That may ultimately be the case. That is what I talked about when I mentioned SODPs shining a light on the pre-application stage and encouraging proper discussion then. Without undue speculation about the future, I can say that if SODPs were not seen to be robust enough to replace outline planning permission, I would be loth to go down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Mole Valley and scrap all the provisions for SODPs. Their execution may shed some light on useful elements that add to, rather than detract from, the planning system, as the hon. Member for Cotswold suggests. I suspect that he would like to keep SODPs, and he may be right. If they do not succeed in replacing OPPs—if we keep OPPs without repealing section 92—there might still be a role for SODPs.
 I make no excuses for at least trying what could be an innovative and useful new system. If it does not work we will have to tweak it. By alluding to section 92, we have made provision for a range of contingencies. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, however. There has been a degree of confusion not only about the relationship between SODPs and outline planning permission, but about the notion that implicitly, if not explicitly on Royal Assent, SODPs will mean that outline planning permission will go. That is not the case, because it has its place and value. We will have to wait and see whether SODPs replace OPP or not. 
 Specifically, given what I said about the potential merit of amendment No. 310, I shall take back the whole of new section 61D(6) and look at it. I therefore hope that the Committee will indulge me and the amendment will be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This important debate has given the Committee a good opportunity to have a detailed discussion of outline planning permission. A number of the reservations and anxieties expressed by planning practitioners will have been somewhat alleviated. As the Minister said, when introducing an entirely new system it is difficult to predict exactly how well or how badly its provisions will work. I suspect that they will give planning authorities a huge amount of extra work, because the number of SODP applications will increase considerably compared with the number of outline planning applications. One result of the Bill will be a requirement for more skilled planning personnel to deal with its provisions. The amendments have outlined one area in which extra people will have to be employed. However, that is further down the line.
 The Minister 's reply was helpful, particularly in relation to subsection (6) of new section 61D. We look forward to the Government's moving further amendments on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 409, in
clause 40, page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (3).

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 313, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 10, at end insert—
(c) the reasons for the local planning authority's decision.'.
 No. 314, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 10, at end insert—
'(3A) If the local planning authority agree with the principle of the proposed development (in whole or part), the statement of development principles may indicate:
(a) information which should be provided by any applicant for planning permission for the proposed development or part of it;
(b) any principles with which the proposed development should comply with;
(c) and the nature of any planning conditions or planning obligations to which the development may be subject.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The amendment is intended to probe what is meant by subsection (3) of new section 61D, and to discover whether negotiations would take place with applicants, perhaps enabling them to modify their requests for SODPs. It is not clear what the process of applying for an SOPD will entail. One would expect a certain amount of pre-application negotiation to be necessary before the application is made. Indeed, applications may have to be withdrawn and modified. We need to hear from the Minister exactly what is intended.
 Amendment No. 313 seeks merely to ensure that when a statement of development principles is issued, the reasons for the local planning authority's decision must be given. I am sure that will happen as a matter of course, but we would like it on the record that the Minister envisages that that will happen. 
 Amendment No. 314 seeks to emulate the present position with outline planning permission, whereby the applicant, having been granted outline planning permission, will need to have resolved reserved matters and other material matters before full planning permission is granted. That is essential, especially in complicated planning applications such as those for King's Cross. It would be useful to hear what the Minister proposes in that respect. 
 The amendments are important; I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Tony McNulty: I see no merit in amendment No. 409. For a statement to be of any use to a potential developer, it must say clearly whether or not the LPA agrees with the principle of the proposed development. I should have thought that that was clear. Without it, the statement would be worthless. I know that it is late, and it would be churlish of me to describe this as a wrecking amendment, but that is the import and focus of it. However, I sympathise with the purpose of amendments Nos. 313 and 314. For an LPA's statement to be truly effective, it should include information that would help a developer to understand what the authority would expect to see in
 a subsequent planning application.
 We intend to specify, in a development order made under the powers in new section 61D(8), that local planning authorities must set out in their statement their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with all or part of the proposed development. Where the authority agrees the principle of all or part of the development, we intend to require the statement also to include any matters that will need to be addressed by a subsequent planning application, any requirements in relation to the content of, and information to be submitted with, any subsequent planning application, and, if applicable, a statement that the LPA's agreement in principle, where given, is subject to the production of a satisfactory environmental statement. 
 If a local planning authority wishes to include information about possible planning conditions or obligations, it should be free to do so. However, we do not intend to make that a requirement at this stage—it can happen subsequently. Amendments Nos. 313 and 314 will be dealt with in the development order. However, the import of amendment No. 409 would make the SODPs redundant, and we will resist it. I ask that the amendments be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Part of the function of the Committee is to probe the Government's intentions. If we had had some of the Minister's helpful assurance in an explanatory memorandum or in some other form, it would not have been necessary to table all the amendments. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 315, in
clause 40, page 24, line 13, leave out from 'permission' to 'which' in line 14 and insert
'so far as material to the application'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 410, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 13, after 'development', insert
'on all or part of the same site'.
 No. 411, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 14, after 'development', insert
'an all or part of the same site'.
 No. 316, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 14, leave out from 'be)' to end of line 15.
 No. 317, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 14, leave out 'made' and insert 'determined'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The first of this large group of amendments, amendment No. 315, seeks to delete from subsection (4) the words
''in respect of a similar development or part of a similar development (as the case may be)''
 and to insert 
''so far as material to the application''.
 This is just a drafting error—I am sorry, that was a Freudian slip; I meant a drafting amendment—to try to clarify the meaning of the subsection. I hope that even if he does not like the amendment, the Minister will clarify what is meant by subsection (4). Amendment No. 410 also seeks clarification. Can an SODP be applied for when outline planning permission has been granted on a full site, and can an SODP be applied for or granted on part of a site? It would be interesting to know what the Government's thinking is. Amendment No. 411 seeks similar clarification. 
 Amendment No. 316 is intended to obtain clarification of proposed subsection (4), the drafting of which is quite tortuous. Finally, amendment No. 317, on the same proposed subsection, is a matter of correct drafting. From my knowledge of planning law I believe that applications for planning permission are always determined, not made, by the local planning authority. If the Government are considering tidying up the drafting, as they now must because of the two spelling mistakes, should not the Minister do so in this case, if he is not prepared to accept amendment No. 317?

Sydney Chapman: I support my hon. Friend's remarks about the amendments. In particular, although it may be pedantic to say this, the word ''determined'', which would be inserted by amendment No. 317, is better than the word ''made''.
 We are dealing with very complex matters, and although the amendments may not be verbally perfect, they make substantive points, not just passing pedantic ones. The statements of development principles are a completely new concept in planning—incidentally, I notice that we appear to be calling them SODPs or SOD principles, but no one has actually pronounced the term as ''Sod principles'', as that might have a completely different meaning from what was intended.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I suggest another acronym—Sod plus P?

Sydney Chapman: Exactly. This might be a convenient moment for me to sit down.

Tony McNulty: The amendments are misconceived. Proposed new section 61D(7) already specifies that a development is similar to another
''if the local planning authority think that the development and the land to which they relate are the same or substantially the same.''
 The issue at the core of subsection (4) concerns what is to prevail 
''in respect of a similar development or part of a similar development''
 and that, as I have said, is defined in subsection (7). It may be interesting to debate phrases such as ''material to the application'' or 
''all or part of the same site'',
 but those elements are already covered by proposed subsections (4) and (7). 
 In contrast to the previous group of amendments, nothing in this group would add anything material to the Bill. At the risk of annoying and offending Opposition Members, I shall resist—unless I get a 
 note telling me otherwise—the word game about whether to say ''determined'' or ''made''. I am sure that if I had the time and energy I could come up with an excellent defence of the word ''made''—although I hear what hon. Members say about the greater appropriateness of ''determined'' in the planning permission context. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister was helpful with the previous group of amendments, and although he has resisted the group that we are considering, we have had a useful exchange. I do not feel particularly strongly, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 373, in
clause 40, page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (5).

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 318, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 16, leave out 'But'.
 No. 319, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 23, at end insert—
'(6A) Where a local planning authority issue a statement of development principles in which they disagree with the principle of the proposed development or agree with the principle of only part of the proposed development the person who requested the statement and any person interested in land comprised within the statement may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.
(6B) A person who requested the statement and any person interested in land comprised within the statement may also appeal to the Secretary of State if the local planning authority have done none of the following:—
(a) issued the statement of development principles;
(b) given notice that they have exercised their power under subsection (5) to decline to issue a statement;
within such a period as may be prescribed by development order or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the person requesting the statement and the authority.
(6C) Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice served within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Subsection (5) states:
''But a local planning authority may decline to issue a statement of development principles before the end of the period of two years starting on the date of issue of a statement of development principles in which the local planning authority disagree with the principle of all or part of a similar development.''
 In other words, when an authority disagrees, it may decline to issue a similar statement. 
 We are concerned that the proposed SODP mechanism will not provide an effective alternative to outline consensus. The SODPs will only be a material consideration for future applications; they will not be equivalent to consent. It is highly unlikely that they will provide a basis on which applicants could progress a development. They will not provide the certainty required to enable developers to raise finance for a project. 
 Subsection (5) allows a local planning authority to decline to issue an SODP within two years of a 
 previous SODP for a similar development if it disagrees with the principle or even part of it. That is an unhelpful proposal and it would prevent developers from establishing the LPA's position on a proposed development or proposed changes to a scheme, even when changes had been made to address the LPA's concerns as expressed in an earlier SODP. That will limit the use of SODPs. 
 As we said under clause 38, it is a feature of planning application that things evolve. An SODP application may be turned down by a local authority, but in two years' time there may be a new plan or a new RSS, or a number of other things could change. There should be a power to consider an SODP within that two-year period if the local authority considers it reasonable to do so. Providing such a straitjacket in subsection (5) is not helpful. I ask the Minister to consider that aspect carefully. 
 If Committee members turn to subsection (5), they will notice that the first word ''But'', as referred to in amendment No. 318, is completely unnecessary. The subsection would read with greater clarity and simplicity without it. That amendment is simple and needs little explanation. 
 Amendment No. 319 provides an appeal mechanism. The Bill provides no such mechanism. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, a citizen should have a proper right of appeal against an organ of the state with which he or she disagrees. On the very first page of the Bill, Committee members will see a certificate stating that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights: 
''Mr. Secretary Prescott has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
In my view the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.''
 Others more expert in that area than I, especially some of the lawyers in another place, will no doubt consider that. I wonder whether the Bill can actually conform to that certificate, if there is no appeal right in the SODP mechanism. 
 I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say because it is fundamental under section 1 of the 1998 Act that people have a full right to proper enjoyment of their property. Without an appeal mechanism, if a landowners apply for an SODP on their land and are turned down, with no right of appeal, their rights will be severely curtailed. If there is no appeal mechanism in the Bill there is a great likelihood that sooner or later a case will end up before the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that someone's human rights are being violated. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something helpful, because I am sure that those in another place will wish to pursue the matter, especially as expressed in amendment No. 319.

Matthew Green: I am slightly perturbed by the amendments. One of the fascinating things about the Conservative party's position is that, having accepted the entire environmental agenda—it was good to hear that, and I welcome their conversion, Damascene as it
 is—they now seem to be agreeing to the incorporation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Government have to do it.

Matthew Green: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is implying that it is a good thing.
 I am worried by the amount of work that we shall be asking of planning departments. The danger of an appeals system is that it will be a route for yet more work. We should remember that statements of development principles will be running for some time in conjunction with outline planning permissions. The latter will be crucial at that stage, and I am concerned that appeals against SODPs will cause the planning system to grind to a halt. Elements of the system suggest to me that it will become slower, not quicker, and I am concerned that the amendments would make it slower still. I am not a legal expert and I do not know what impact the Human Rights Act would have. 
 On amendment No. 318, I am a little perturbed because, as a member of the Committee considering the Regional Referendums (Preparations) Bill, we spent an hour and a half discussing several buts just before Christmas. Those, too, were Conservative amendments. I am worried that Conservatives may be obsessed by buts. The amendment will not achieve much; it will not make a jot of difference to the meaning. I am concerned that it will add to the work of planning departments, and I would struggle to support it.

Sydney Chapman: I must take issue with the hon. Member for Ludlow. He seemed to imply that the party that I have the privilege of representing does not take a particular interest in the environment—or that we are not interested in it to same extent as his party. I can only tell him that 32 years ago, my maiden speech in the House was about the importance of the environment—it was a new word at the time. I would like to think that my record shows that I have had a deep interest in the subject, and I know that many in my party share that interest. It is slightly arrogant for one party to claim that it has a preponderance of interest in the subject.

Paul Beresford: I remember being a Minister in the Department of the Environment, which legislated on the environment and set up a programme that the present Government took forward letter by letter, word by word, chapter by chapter.

Peter Pike: Order. Let us keep to the amendments.

Sydney Chapman: Indeed, Mr. Pike. With your forbearance, may I say that, in a sense, this country begat the European Court of Human Rights. We wrote most of the convention. With your indulgence, Mr. Pike, I would like to say that never have a Conservative Government not carried out decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Our objection to the Human Rights Act 1998, which was brought in by the present Government, was that our judges and courts should necessarily have to second-guess the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. I leave it at that, Mr. Pike, but it is an important point. The idea that the Liberal Democrat party might be
 more interested than mine in European human rights is absurd. I apologise, Mr. Pike, for that.
 There is a contradiction between amendments Nos. 373 and 318. The first seeks to delete subsection (5) of new section 61D. If it is deleted, however, there is no need for amendment No. 318. Whenever I write an article for any organ, I like to begin certain paragraphs with the words ''and'' or ''but''. That seems more direct than using ''nevertheless'' or ''however''. I do not know whether it is etymologically correct to begin a subsection with a preposition—if ''but'' is a preposition—but I have no objection to it. It does not seem, however, that there is a need for ''if'', if subsection (5) is to remain in the Bill. If amendment No. 373 is voted down and that subsection remains, I will support amendment No. 318. I am not trying to be clever or to cast aspersions, but I genuinely do not see why subsection (5) is needed. I would be very grateful if the Minister could give the rationale behind it. 
 Briefly, on amendment No. 319, I think that it is important to include at least the proposed new section 6A and I would personally like 6B and 6C to be added as well. The first of those proposals reads: 
''Where a local planning authority issue a statement of development principles in which they disagree with the principle of the proposed development or agree with the principle of only part of the proposed development the person who requested the statement and any person interested in land comprised within the statement may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.''
 It is important to include that in the Bill because a local planning authority will otherwise be able to hold up an application by issuing a statement saying that it disagrees with that application. The applicant or interested person will then have to decide whether to submit an outline planning application or, if they cannot do that, a detailed planning application, which would cost a lot of money, knowing that whatever they submit to the local planning authority will be rejected because the statement of principle says that the authority disagrees with the proposed development. 
 It would be perfectly right and fair for an applicant who did not want to wait another two months or, for a significant application, six months, to be able to go to the Secretary of State, which would be his right were his application turned down. Why should he not be able to appeal to the Secretary of State there and then rather than having his time wasted? I know that the Government are sincere in their desire to speed up the planning process, but failing to include the amendment's proposal will be one sure way, in certain instances, to slow the whole process down and almost grind it to a halt. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has been absolutely on the ball in tabling the amendment. It would be in the interests of fairness to incorporate it in the Bill.

Tony McNulty: I have listened to the remarks on the amendments with great interest. I profoundly disagree with every word that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has said and with, even more so, the remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold on human rights, which were completely irrelevant. We are discussing a statement of principles not an application for consent or planning permission. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, there are at least two occasions
 between outline planning permission and planning permission proper when an appeal can be invoked. If neither option takes the applicant's fancy, they can go straight to judicial review and have an appeal sorted out that way. That more than provides for human rights. The hon. Gentleman's point was totally irrelevant.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: I shall give way once but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am keen to make progress. I thought that that was why we were here.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We are all keen to make progress. It is the Government who are curtailing progress.

Tony McNulty: Fatuous.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is belittling his innovation—the statement of development principles—when he says that they are only principles. He is, of course, fully aware of subsection (4), which states that
''A statement of development principles is a material consideration for the purposes of the determination of any application''.
 It is more than just a statement of principles; it is a very important statement of principles.

Tony McNulty: The principles are important for subsequent applications—read the whole clause.
 Subsection (5) is simply about what happens when there is some degree of overlap. Unusually—given what we have been discussing today—the hon. Gentleman has failed to alight on the important word. ''But'' is not the key word in subsection (5); the fifth word, ''may'', is the key word. He has talked about subsection (5) as though it were a statutory power obliging local authorities to turn down applications for a statement of development principle. I do not know how that power, which is entirely at the discretion of the local authority, clogs the system up. 
 I do not think that I will bother, but I could cheerfully pop down to Ludlow and put in a planning application on the house of the hon. Member for Ludlow. He would have no right of appeal, and why should he? That has been an underlying principle of the town and country planning system since the 1940s. The notion that the hon. Gentleman, whether or not he owns the house or has a greater interest in the land, should have a right of appeal on planning permission is not included in the Bill. Whether such an appeal should be included and whether I should have the right to put in such an application without telling him are different arguments. To take one step back at the statement-of-development-principles stage and say that there should be an enshrined right to appeal for some obtuse human rights reason is absurd. 
 None of the three elements would add anything to the Bill. They would blow up a specific set of criteria in which we have afforded local planning authorities a discretionary power where there is overwhelming similarity between successive statements of development principles. Blowing that up as though it were the entire scheme, which it clearly is not, has lead 
 to obtuse and absurd conclusions, which is a matter for regret because the Committee was doing so well.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for what the Minister has said, but it is what he has not said that is interesting.
 The Minister profoundly disagrees with everything that I have said. Amendment No. 319 would introduce the words: 
''Where a local planning authority issue a statement of development principles in which they disagree with the principle of the proposed development''.
 Can the Minister give the Committee an instance in which a local planning authority would approve a planning application despite disagreeing with its principle? Subsection (5) gives a planning authority the power deliberately to slow down, if not thwart, a planning application with which it disagrees on principle. All I am saying is that if a planning authority issues a statement of development principles, the person who is disadvantaged by it should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On this occasion, I totally disagree with the Minister, who has belittled his statement of development principles, which could be a useful new tool. He says that there are other rights of appeal, but in his previous statement he said that he intends at some stage to consider phasing out outline planning permission in which there is an avenue of appeal. If outline planning permission were phased out, our appeal mechanism would become ever more important.
 I am amazed that the Liberal Democrat party, which goes at the amendments in a nitpicking way, should want to seek to restrict the rights of citizens. I thought that that party was all about giving citizens every possible right. On many occasions, I have heard the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) drone on and on about rights of appeal. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Ludlow should argue in Committee for citizens not to have a right of appeal. 
 Be that as it may, the matter will probably be returned to in another place because the Lords will be much more interested in compliance with the European Court of Human Rights and the Humans Rights Act 1998, and much more knowledgeable about that, than we are. We have had a useful discussion, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 320, in
clause 40, page 24, line 33, leave out 'such'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 321, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 33, after 'consultation', insert
'of the public and interested persons'.
 No. 322, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 34, leave out
'as the appropriate authority thinks fit'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I hope that we can make a little progress before we finish. If members of the Committee would be kind enough to turn to page 24, they will find that subsection (8)(d) refers to
''such requirements as to consultation on the proposed development as the appropriate authority thinks fit.''
 My amendment would delete ''such'' so that subsection (8)(d) would begin with ''requirements''. I do not like the subjective mechanism that this and similar clauses give to local authorities. If the matter were to go to judicial review, it would be difficult to decide what the authority might think fit. The test should be whether it is reasonable. The word ''such'' is unnecessary. 
 Amendment No. 321 relates to the question of who is to be consulted. It could be a very narrow group of people and the development order could be made without the public having had an adequate chance to make their views known. The order will be important and the public should have the right to be consulted. The order ought to be fully advertised and the public should have the opportunity to make their views known. 
 Amendment No. 322 is intended to restrict the subjective nature of what the authority may or may not think fit. I am not sure that the amendment is drafted entirely correctly, but I want the Bill to include the idea of what is appropriate in the circumstances. That would give a truly objective test. The amendments are pretty simple, and I hope that the Government will accept them.

Tony McNulty: In essence the amendments are simple, but they add absolutely nothing to the Bill, apart from changing the consultation requirements in a fashion that I do not really understand. As the hon. Gentleman said, the new section provides for the order to include such requirements to consult as the appropriate authority thinks fit. The amendments would have the combined effect of providing for the order to include requirements to consult the public and interested persons. I cannot think of any person, body or group whom we would wish to consult, but who would not fit in with the definition in the Bill. I see no point in introducing a provision that ultimately limits our ability to require consultation. We intend, in secondary legislation, to require the same consultation as would be required on an application for planning permission for a similar development.

Paul Beresford: I remind the Minister that he indicated at the Select Committee that much of secondary legislation and subsequent legislation would be made available. We could have done without quite a bit of this evening's discussion if we had had that sort of information. That is particularly true in relation to the point about consultation in this group of amendments. The Minister says that there will be secondary legislation. If we had known that, we probably would not have tabled the amendments.

Tony McNulty: I accept that. I also accept that the Committee was grateful for the route map through secondary legislation and the guidance and regulation provided in part 1. I am sorry that it was not possible to do the same for this part of the Bill. I would love to say that our progress had been so speedy that it had been difficult to keep up with things, but that has not been the case. I take the point, but in that context, the amendments do not add anything and I hope that they will be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 412, in
clause 40, page 24, line 39, leave out 'three years' and insert 'one year'.
 This simple amendment would reduce the relevant period from three years to one. Subsection (4) explains that the relevant period is the period in which a similar application may not be made. As I have already suggested, circumstances and plans may change, so if we are to have a blocking mechanism, it seems sensible to reduce the relevant period to one year, although I cannot understand why it is necessary at all. After all, it is perfectly normal procedure to have one or more applications, and there is no time bar on when another similar application may be made. Indeed, there are often very good reasons for making similar applications. If we are to have a blocking mechanism, however, it seems sensible to reduce the period from three years to one.

Sydney Chapman: I support my hon. Friend. The Minister may argue that the phrase,
''or such other period starting on that day as that authority direct''
 in paragraph (b) to proposed new subsection (10) provides the necessary flexibility, but paragraph (a) refers to a period of three years, which we seek to reduce to one year, and that sets the trend. I suspect that the phrase ''such other period'' will probably relate to a later, rather than an earlier, period. It is perfectly legitimate to recommend that the relevant period should be changed from three years to one, given the provision in paragraph (b). I hope that the Minister will give that a fair wind.

Tony McNulty: It is perfectly legitimate to put the case, but I am not giving it a fair wind. I like the Bill as it is.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: But for the lateness of the hour, given that challenge from the Minister, I would certainly press the amendment to a vote.

Paul Beresford: Why not?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend urges me to press the amendment to a vote.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Dan Norris.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 23 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.